1951-06-30

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of personal privilege I wish to point out that there is carried in the Montreal Gazette of this morning a report which bears the headline: "Ships carried war materiel to China-P.M." The report is a Canadian Press report, and it is an accurate report of the discussions which took place in this house yesterday, but the headline would convey to many a quite erroneous impression. "War materiel" is taken by many to mean munitions, supplies or equipment for armed forces. The report contains this paragraph, which is correct:
Mr. St. Laurent said the reason the ships carried to China materials Canada herself now bans for export to Red countries was that the materials were not placed on Britain's banned list until a few days ago. Now the British and Canadian lists were virtually the same.
It would be most unfortunate if this headline conveyed the impression that I was indicating to the house that Britain allowed "war materiel" to be carried to communist China. For a great many there is a substantial difference between what are classified as strategic materials and what is described as "war materiel". I was speaking of the items on our list of strategic materials which, up to some days ago, was more restrictive than that of Britain. But I certainly did not wish to imply that the British authorities were allowing "war materiel" to be carried to communist China.



INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS FOR CEASE-FIRE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has he any information, other than that appearing in the press, about the negotiations for a cease-fire in Korea? Can he make any statement on it this morning?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I have no information additional to that which was published in the
press. It is a pretty complete statement of what is being done, and is such as to raise hopes in the minds of a great many that we may be on the eve of a cease-fire in Korea.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Since this is the last day of the session may I be permitted to preface my remarks, sir, with a few explanatory words?-because this is a matter that affects many thousands of people across the country. Beginning on Monday, deductions of income tax will be made at the source without regard to the proper allowances to which the taxpayer would be entitled. Will the department arrange, as soon as possible after proof has been given as to the proper deductions to which the taxpayer would be entitled, to make the necessary refund? Otherwise the labouring man and the salaried man will have paid far more income tax than they should, and the money to which they are entitled by way of refund will be held for a considerable time.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: On June 18, when discussing section 15 of the Income Tax Act, I made a statement on the withholding tax, and I should like to read the last paragraph of it, which I think on consideration is as fair and explicit an answer as I can make to the question which my hon. friend has asked, and of which he has given me notice. I said, as reported at page 4246 of Hansard:
Finally, I should add that in those cases where the incidence of intermittent employment, charitable donations, or unusual medical expenses, brings about over-deductions of tax, refunds can and will be made within a very short time after the taxpayer files his annual return. This year, for example, all district offices had processed refunds within two to four weeks after the receipt of the returns. If the taxpayer will file his return promptly, the department will see to it that he gets his cheque with all possible dispatch.
I admit that there has been some delay in some instances, perhaps, because the practice is that we have to match what are called T4 slips-that is, the slips that come from the employer, in which he indicates the

Inquiries of the Ministry amount of money that has been paid to the employee and the deductions that have been made.
If the taxpayer will make his return any time after January 1 for the year preceding, and we have the T4 returns from the employer, I will guarantee that refunds will be made very promptly, and following our practice that has been done within two to four weeks of the receipt of the return.
As I stated yesterday on the estimates, all, or practically all, the refunds for the year 1950 have been made as of the middle of June. That is a condition that has never before obtained in the department.
One of the causes of delay has been the complaint-I will admit this-by some employers that they did not have the T4 forms as early as they would have liked. That is one of the matters that we can attend to this year; I will see to it that they have them early in January, and refunds will be made with great promptness.
I might say to the hon. gentleman that there is the other side of it, too; there are cases in which the payment is not enough, where individuals have earned income from other sources than salary or wages, and the amount of earned income other than salary or wages last year was in excess of the combined medical bills and charitable donations. However, that has nothing to do with it. It is just to show that there is another side to the case. In these instances we have to make an extra collection of tax; but we will continue to see to it that refunds are made as promptly as it is possible to make them.
The taxpayer has a right, and is invited, to make his return early in the year. If he does that, and we have the matching T4 form, we shall be able to make his refund accordingly.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister for that assurance, because a number of labouring men have written me in regard to it.



MOVEMENT OUT OF STORAGE AND FROM HEAD OF LAKES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: The
other day I asked a question of the Minister of Transport about the probability of being able to take out of the western provinces all the 1950 wheat crop before the 1951 season begins. The Department of Transport stated that that was a matter for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I would now ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he is in a position to give this information.

It is of importance to western farmers who have much wheat on hand.
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Yes, Mr. Speaker, the movement of western grain from the prairies to market has been the cause of great concern since the opening of navigation. As hon. members know, the crop was very late last year, and the movement of the crop before the close of navigation was only about 50 per cent of normal. The movement to date is not such as would indicate that this crop will be moved from western Canada by the time the next crop is marketed. There will certainly be a considerable amount of grain at the lakehead, and the best we can hope is that the country elevators will be cleared.
Extraordinary efforts have been made to obtain additional lake tonnage, which is the bottleneck at the moment. The fact of the matter is that lake tonnage is not sufficient to move the quantity of wheat which must be moved by this summer and, in addition, take care of the minimum requirements for iron ore and other products which must also be moved. A conference is being held today, which is one of several conferences, through which it is hoped to divert additional tonnage from other services. Every effort is being made to get the grain forward, but one unfortunate result has been we have had to stop selling No. 6 wheat and feed wheat for the very reason that we cannot make deliveries within any reasonable time on account of transportation problems. That, I think, is the situation. If my hon. friend has any other questions I should be glad to answer them.


John George Diefenbaker: Can the minister say
approximately what is the amount that will not be moved from the prairies? I am speaking particularly of the estimated amount in farm storage or in line elevators on the prairies. Then there is the other question arising out of the minister's statement. Approximately how much of the No. 6 wheat could be sold of which the wheat board has denied sale because transportation facilities are not available?


Mr. Howe:: Up to June 21 the railroads had moved 415 million bushels of grain out of country elevators in the western division. As of the same date, a total of 108 million bushels of grain remains in country elevators, and the railways still continue to carry on a reasonably large movement of grain right up to the end of the crop year. Considering present stocks of grain in country elevators, and the volume of grain which producers will market during the remainder of the crop year, it is expected that some 80 to 90 million bushels

of grain will remain in country positions at the end of the crop year. Those are the essential figures.


Major James William Coldwell: Does the minister know the capacity of the country elevators?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not remember. I used to have those figures in my mind, but I think it is about 200 million bushels.


John George Diefenbaker: Then there is the other question, in regard to the statement the minister made that No. 6 wheat, of which apparently there is a large amount on hand, cannot be sold because it cannot be moved. About how much No. 6 wheat is there in that condition?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The amount of No. 6 wheat and feed wheat remaining unsold, allowing for 20 million bushels carry-over, which is the normal requirement until the next crop is harvested, is about 60 to 65 million bushels. My hon. friend has asked how much could be sold if we could move it. I cannot answer that question, because we are not offering the wheat.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister said he could have sold it if it could have been moved.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We could have sold more than we have to date. We have sold everything we have offered, but we offer it only if we are reasonably sure of getting it in a deliverable position at the time when it is required.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Defence Production. Is the minister aware of the growing unemployment in the automobile industry, and is there any statement he wishes to make before the house rises? Will he give the matter his active attention?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Of course the minister is giving that matter his active attention. As I said before, the situation at the present time is not clear as to what the actual employment is. I talked with General Motors officials a few days ago, and I was told that they do not expect employment to drop more than ten per cent from the peak employment figure-which peak employment was certainly abnormal. At the present time automobile factories in Windsor and vicinity are closed down, partly due to a strike in a parts
Supply-Veterans Affairs factory, and partly in order to readjust production schedules, the latter in the case of Ford.


Mr. Adamson:: Is that the Acme strike?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes, the Acme strike. That strike is now settled, but it will take some time to get the product moving. Within the next week or two we should be able to assess the situation and see what the real unemployment situation is in the Windsor area. There is no lack of employment throughout industry in Ontario, as my hon. friend knows, if he sees the figures reported by the Department of Labour. In fact employment in the province is tighter than it has been for some years.
There will be no great difficulty, as I see it, in moving into other industries the men who may be displaced in the automobile industry. Most industries are short of productive manpower. All I can say to the house is that the department is giving close and careful attention to the situation, and believes that a remedy can be worked out within a reasonable time.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Pensions and other benefits-
822. To provide financial assistance after the thirty-first day of May, 1951, in accordance with regulations to be made by the governor in council, to unemployable veterans who are in receipt of pensions under the Pension Act for a disability which is a factor contributing to their unemployability; such financial assistance to be exempt from income tax under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, $2,000,000.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this matter was dealt with at considerable length in the committee on veterans affairs. As I was not a member of that committee, there are one or two references I should like to make to it.
I take the strongest objection to what appears to be a change in principle in the awarding of war pensions. Throughout the years the principle has been one of compensation for war injuries, or injuries received in service. This new term "unemployability" seems to incorporate the principle of establishing destitution-in other words, the means test-in relation to additions to the amount of a regular pension.
I think it is generally agreed throughout the country that some cost of living bonus should be added to war pensions, by reason of the tremendous increase in the cost of living since the last changes were made in pension levels. The present rate of pensions,

Supply-Veterans Affairs and also of war veterans allowances, is not in keeping with the needs of veterans, or indeed with the maintenance of that dignity to which the war veterans are entitled.
I do not often speak on veterans affairs, although from its inception I have been a member of the Canadian Legion. But I do protest most strenuously against what I believe is a departure from the true design and purpose of pensions legislation since 1919, and one that carries with it the possibility of establishing a principle which is contrary to the principles upon which war pensions should be paid.
In the last few weeks I have received petitions from various Canadian Legion branches, both in and outside my own province, protesting against this departure from true pension principles. I think every member in the House of Commons, however desirous he may be of maintaining economy, agrees that the present rate of pension should be increased in order, for the time being, to meet the changed conditions brought about by the high cost of living.
I speak not only as a member of the Legion, but as one who has received the representations to which I have referred. I am supported in the stand I take by the July, 1951, issue of The Legionary, which sets out in plain English the attitude taken by the Canadian Legion and its membership across this country.
I shall not read at length, but I shall put on record one or two brief quotations which set forth in epitome the views I hold on this important matter, as well as those of officials of the Canadian Legion. This editorial is entitled "In plain English," and states:
In plain English, then, the result of the committee's work was a very great disappointment to the Canadian Legion, as indeed it must have been to many members of the committee. To the great majority of war disability pensioners and their families who, in spite of the dreadful rise in living costs, will receive no increase whatever in their pensions at this time, the result is nothing less than a calamity.
Then it says:
In fact, judging by the shocking lack of sympathy displayed by certain government members and officials, this is almost certain to happen.
Then it refers to the calling of a fall session, when it is expected this matter will come up, and it continues:
. . . unless the cabinet is made to realize in the interval that the veteran body and the public and press of the dominion are really aroused over this glaring injustice.
Those are strong expressions, but they represent the considered opinion of representatives of the Canadian Legion, who speak

without partisanship but always with directness concerning the case of the veteran which that organization has served so well. It sums up the matter in these words:
As for the $2 million unemployability supplement, which the committee approved by an 18-10 vote, no one-least of all the employed pensioners-will begrudge for a moment the unfortunate veterans, who are completely unable to work, the supplementary allowance the government is going to give them. But, as the Legion's representatives pointed out again and again to the committee, the new principle being established through the introduction of this palliative is a humiliating and thoroughly undesirable one, being based on charitable compassion instead of proud right earned through the shedding of blood or impairment of health while fighting for our country's survival.
That language is stronger than anything else I have read in The Legionary. Throughout the years the Canadian Legion has served the Canadian people by the stand it has taken in the maintenance of all that is good and proper in our way of life. Someone might ask if I would vote against this. Certainly not, and it is simply begging the issue to ask that question. The unemployability supplement means that tens of thousands of veterans in this country who are unable to carry on but who none the less can take some employment are going to be denied the measure of fairness and consideration to which they are entitled.
I noticed recently that one of the ministers stated that over ninety per cent of the pensioners were employed. I do not know where those statistics were secured. When the minister was asked on what they were based, he stated that a spot-check had been made of 35,000 veterans. Personally I do not believe that check was general enough; for I know that in my province many pensionable veterans are becoming more and more unemployable, particularly those who served in the first war. The stand taken here is a parsimonious one having regard to the need of the veterans who for the most part are receiving pensions and who are depending on those pensions for a reasonable degree of sustenance.
While agreeing that this does touch the fringe of the problem, in touching the fringe it establishes a principle that is a denial of all the foundation principles of pensions legislation which have been established over the years. I protest against it, because I feel that service entitlement is no longer made the qualification for a pension, but rather that destitution and unemployability are being substituted in part so far as this supplement is concerned.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a word or two on the subject to which the hon. member for Lake Centre has referred. I was not able to serve this year

on the special committee because, as to numbers, membership on the committee was restricted.


Mr. Mutch:: Just two less.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not know why the membership of the committee was so small, but certainly, it was not possible for all members who are veterans to serve on that committee. I am not going to take advantage of this opportunity to say everything that might have been said in the committee, because those who were on the special committee discussed this matter quite fully; but I do want to bring to the attention of the minister one or two matters which I was not able to bring before the committee.
The British Columbia command of the Canadian Legion were holding their provincial conference at the time this matter came before the special committee, and they sent in the strongest of protests against the introduction of the means test principle in connection with the unemployability supplement and the regulations the government are laying down prescribing the payment of that supplement. In addition I received a telegram-this was the subject of some comment earlier in the house-from the president of Branch No. 70 of the tubercular veterans section, Canadian Legion, Tranquille, British Columbia. A large tuberculosis sanitarium is operated there by the provincial government, and Branch No. 70 has a large number of members. These are the types of veterans who would be expected to receive the unemployability supplement provided for in this item. They are the very veterans who might be expected to benefit, but they go on record as being strongly opposed to the principle being laid down in the regulations covering the payment of this supplement. I should like to read the telegram as I received it:
We would like to go on record as protesting the apathetic approach of the Liberal government in dealing with the veterans pensions and problems. We protest most vigorously the charitable stigma which a pensioner is being made to feel. The problem besetting pensioned veterans today is adversely affecting the recruiting campaign and will continue to do so until the security promised veterans is forthcoming. It is with regret that we noted party politics rearing its ugly head in veterans affairs. This is indisputably shown in the vote taken in parliamentary committee of veterans affairs. Out of 31 members 20 are Liberals. Nineteen Liberals voted against veterans getting a fair break. This same political party was the one that promised the veterans security in their future. It is to be noted that the shameless disregard of the Liberals to their obligations is ignored. It is with deep concern that we noted that the government-
I think they meant to refer to the session.
-will be called to a halt without this legislation being rectified. This is against all principles of free
Supply-Veterans Affairs
enterprise. Normally if a person or assembly commits itself, it should fulfil its contract or resign. Needless to say we are disillusioned and disgusted with the Liberal government.
Copies sent to the following:	Mr. St. Laurent,
Mr. Lapointe, Mr. E. D. Fulton, General Pearkes, MP, Ottawa; also letters to editor, Vancouver Sun, editor, Vancouver Province, Mr Robinson, T.V.S. Secretary, Canadian Legion, Ottawa and provincial command.
James Athey
President, Branch 70, T.V.S.
That is the telegram about which I questioned the Prime Minister on an earlier occasion; I asked whether he had received it, and I was told at that time that it had been turned down by the Prime Minister's office. I received later word to the effect that arrangements were made by the branch to pay for the telegram so that the Prime Minister might actually see a copy, and in fact a copy was delivered to the Prime Minister's office after that had been arranged. Therefore the Prime Minister had received the telegram. I hope that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has received it, because the thing I wish to emphasize is that the tuberculous veterans, who above all might be expected to receive the benefit of the regulations for the unemployability supplement as they are now drafted, are, generally speaking, men of no private means, with nothing beyond their pensions, men whose position deserves the utmost sympathy and consideration from this house. Yet they are the very ones who send this vigorous protest against the principle of the system which is being introduced in this supplement. As they put it, "We protest most vigorously the charitable stigma which a pensioner is being made to feel".
I hope, since this is the last day of the session and it is not probable that any adjustment will be made at this time, that the minister will be moved, as a result of representations from the very people who would be expected to receive the supplement, to alter the regulations in the future and to eliminate from them this means test principle.


Mr. Quelch:: In view of the fact I spoke at some length on this item at the time we were discussing departmental administration, I have no intention of delaying the committee, but I should like to emphasize one point. First of all I should like to remind hon. members that there has been a substantial increase in the cost of living and in wage levels since 1948, and, owing to the fact that there has been no increase in the basic rate of pension since that time, disability pensioners today are under a severe handicap. This item provides assistance to a total of only approximately 6,000 disability pensioners out of a total of 162,000. I see the parliamentary assistant shaking his head. It is
4984	HOUSE OF
Supply-Veterans Affairs estimated that about 6,000 will benefit. It is possible that later on more will benefit.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I was shaking my head because the hon. member said out of a potential of
162.000,	whereas he knows that under the regulations the potential is a maximum of
34.000.


Victor Quelch: But there are actually 162,000 disability pensioners.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: It sounds worse that way.


Victor Quelch: Unfortunately under this item no pension will be given to a single veteran with a disability of less than thirty-five per cent or to a married veteran with a disability of less than forty-five per cent. Many members on the Liberal side have emphasized the fact that the purpose of the item is good, and will give assistance to those who are most in need. Unfortunately it does not do that, because today many veterans who are paid for a thirty-five per cent or forty-five per cent disability actually have a disability of one hundred per cent, but it cannot be shown that it is due to war service and they get no pension for it. Many of these men are in dire need and yet they will not be able to get any assistance under the provisions of this estimate. The veterans affairs committee recommended that the government increase the basic rate of pension, or at least give consideration to it. I should like to ask the minister whether or not the government has given any consideration to the recommendation of the committee for an increase in the basic rate of disability pension.


Mr. Hees:: This week a bill was passed
increasing pensions for judges by twenty per cent to compensate for the increase in the cost of living since 1946. The cost of living has increased by sixteen per cent since the last increase was made in veterans pensions. So far as the veterans are concerned, the government has completely turned down the many requests made for an adequate increase in their pensions to enable them to maintain their standard of living in the same way as all other citizens of the country.
I believe it is impossible to reconcile the attitude and action of the government in these two matters. On the one hand they seem very worried that one class of citizens, the judges, should have an increase in their pensions and salaries so that they can maintain their standard of living and keep up with the rising cost of living. On the other hand they completely disregard the needs of a class of citizens who I think merit the greatest consideration, those whose service to the country has not been surpassed in any way by any other class of citizens.

I refer to our war veterans. I should like to hear what the minister has to say in explanation of the government's policy of giving one class of citizen, namely, the judges, a twenty per cent increase-


The Chairman:: Order.


George Harris Hees: -and on the other hand refusing an increase to war veterans.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. The hon. member
may not refer to a previous debate, and we have had a previous debate on judges pensions and salaries.


George Harris Hees: I have put my question. I am sure that the minister and the government must have an explanation. It is a very important thing to our war veterans. I do not think any class of citizens has given greater service to the country than our war veterans. Why they should be treated in one way, while another class of citizens should be treated in quite a different way, is something that I and other members of the opposition find it impossible to understand. I should like to hear an explanation from the Minister of Veterans Affairs as to why he considers this is a fair deal for the veterans of the country. Could I have an answer, please?


Mr. Lesage:: It was answered why while
you were electioneering.


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I certainly do not intend to go over the debate which took place on the Judges Act. A full explanation of the policy of the government was given at that time. I do not know whether my hon. friend was here, but I do not think it is proper to take up that matter in this debate. I think my hon. friend agrees with me, too.


Victor Quelch: Would	the	minister answer
my question, whether the government has given consideration to the recommendation of the committee?


Hugues Lapointe: I can certainly assure my hon. friend that all recommendations of the special committee on veterans affairs are being very closely studied and considered by the government.


Mr. While (Middlesex Easl):: Three or
four years ago I suggested that these pensions should be hooked to the cost of living index. I do not think we will ever arrive at a satisfactory solution of the problem until some plan of that kind is worked out. If and when it is worked out, it should be done with reference to the time when we had a real dollar in this country.


Mr. Gillis:: Hon. members to my right who have spoken in the last few minutes have emphasized the fact that this is the last day
LMr. Quelch.]

of the session, and that it was too bad a lot of things had not been done before the last day arrived. This does not necessarily have to be the last day. If every member gets to his feet and occupies the same amount of time as those who have spoken, this will not be the last day; there will be several more days.
I agree with the minister that this matter was before a committee for about five weeks, and thereafter there was a full-dress debate in the house which gave everyone an opportunity of expressing an opinion on government policy. I expressed mine, and it is on the record, both in the committee and in the house.
I rise at this time to correct something the member for Lake Centre put on the record. He said that the policy of the government in connection with this unemployable supplement was strongly condemned by the Legion, and that is correct. But he said that as a result of the work of that committee, this action was brought about.


John George Diefenbaker: The last thing I wanted to imply was that, Mr. Chairman.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member should look at the record.


John George Diefenbaker: It was a great committee, and it has done a magnificent job, so that is the last thing I wanted to imply. If there was the slightest implication of that, it certainly was not intended, nor could I conceive of the words being possible of that interpretation.


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member was quoting an article from this month's issue of The Legionary, and if he will look at the record again he will see that that is correct.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, the quotation from the article-I beg your pardon. I thought the hon. member said that I said that.


Clarence Gillis: This vote in the supplementary estimates was placed in the hands of the committee so that there could be a general discussion of its implications. The veterans affairs committee could not accept or reject it, because that is the responsibility of the house. All the committee could do was to send the estimate back to the house, and the final vote on that $2 million is a vote of the house. We want to keep the record straight on that, because a year from now someone will be quoting the member for Lake Centre over the radio and saying: You were a member of the committee that brought it in. The committee could not accept or reject it, and could only discuss it and recommend that it be returned to the house for a vote. In the final analysis the vote is a vote of the House of Commons.
80709-316i
Supply-Veterans Affairs
I am not going to say anything about the merits or demerits of his policy. My opinions are on the record, and I voted against it. The committee recommended further consideration of the matter of basic pensions.


Mr. Drew:: There is one way in which the minister could deal effectively with this matter this morning. In response to a question that was asked, he indicated that he will, of course, give consideration to any recommendations that have been made. Nevertheless I would point out that these recommendations have now been in the hands of the government for some time. Without in any way referring directly to any particular piece of legislation that has been before this house, I would point out that since that time the government has established the principle of recognizing the need for meeting the increased cost of living on a percentage basis. If that applies in one case, it applies in the other. If there is one particular case in which any just provision should apply with more force than another, it is the case of the veteran. The highest obligation of this or any other government is to give adequate consideration to those who have offered the highest type of service that a man or a woman can give in support of the state.
It is not possible for the opposition to move an amendment that would increase this figure or affect the principle which applies to this figure. Nevertheless, the minister has received these recommendations; he has had time to consider them., and since in the other case the government has adopted a principle consistent with what is being urged by the opposition, I would ask the minister to dispose of this matter by giving us an undertaking that when we meet in October he will take the proper steps to introduce legislation that will provide for a uniform over-all percentage increase to the veterans consistent with the increased cost of living.


Hugues Lapointe: The leader of the opposition realizes that any such statement on my part would be an undertaking on behalf of the government. I do not believe he expects me at this moment to give an undertaking of that sort without consulting my colleagues in the cabinet. Such a decision would definitely be a question of government policy which would have to be decided by the government. Frankly I have no hesitation in saying that I cannot give such an undertaking at the present time. I did state that the recommendations of the committee, which included the subject matter mentioned by the leader of the opposition, had been put

Supply-Veterans Affairs before the government and will be considered by the government. If there is any change of policy, it will be announced by the government or by myself.


George Alexander Drew: Naturally I recognized that a statement by the minister would be a statement on behalf of the government. Notwithstanding the fact adjournment may be expected fairly soon, I hope that this item may be allowed to stand while the minister consults with other members of the government. Since this matter was brought before us the government recognized the increased cost of living on a percentage basis in another case, so I do not think he should have much difficulty in getting the approval of the government. A statement on this principle at this time would greatly reassure the veterans during the next three months.


Mr. McLure:: I note that most of the members who have spoken on this item have been veterans, but perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words because there were more enlistments per capita from my constituency during the first and second world wars than from any other constituency in Canada. We have, therefore, a great many pensioners and a great many unemployable veterans.
From what little information I have gathered from the veterans affairs committee, this item would give a little assistance to the unemployable. I find that in pleading the case of the unemployable, the doubtful part of it is found in the person who has to make the decision that the man is unemployable. It is generally turned back to some doctor who has no idea, beyond the medical end of it, whether a man is unemployable or not. Recently in a specific case, after a great deal of correspondence, it was finally decided that, in spite of the doctors, the man was unemployable. There was only one doctor, outside of the veterans affairs department, who would come forward, and it was on his statement that this man was awarded a pension as an unemployable. Whether he will get a further increase under this new legislation, I do not know. I have written about a man who, the department says, is not unemployable; yet it is impossible for him to make a living. He has been turned down again and again. When a man is able to work only about one day in a fortnight, I think he should be immediately classed as an unemployable.
I should have liked to hear the minister answer the question that was asked him with regard to his views on this unemployability pension. He said he did not like to speak on behalf of the government, but I took it from his remarks-


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I did not make any such statement, that I did not like to speak on behalf of the government. I said that I would not undertake to make a statement of policy on behalf of the government without first consulting with my colleagues. Let us get these facts straight.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: That is right, but just the same I took it from his remarks that he was inclined to be in favour of it. I for one, Mr. Chairman, would gladly stay here until he confers with the cabinet, even if it took a day, and they change their policy, as has been suggested by the leader of the opposition. However, this item is not going to benefit anyone a great deal, having regard to the amount shown there.
The ones on behalf of whom I wish to speak are the pensioners who are now getting a starvation pension and who are not able to get any increase to keep up with the cost of living. We have all been stormed with telegrams and letters with reference to this condition, and I think it should have some consideration from the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
From time to time all members of parliament are called upon to take up the cases of veterans. I must say that lately, with regard to the last four or five cases in which I was interested, we were given complete satisfaction. In addition to living up to the letter of the law, I think the department should go a little bit further. There are many cases in which they must have compassion with reference to the man who has served overseas.
As to the comparison that was made by some other hon. members this morning when they spoke about pensions increases to other classes of civilians in order to keep up with the cost of living, may I say that to begin with we should do the same with reference to the veterans who have made application. I hope that the government will think it worth while to change their policy and will give the underpaid veteran pensioners a little break at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OP LABOUR General administration-
188. Fair wages, conciliation, industrial relations, industrial disputes investigations, including the administration of legislation relating thereto, and for activities re promotion of co-operation in industry between labour and management, $348,542.
Mr. Johnston:: Before this item carries I think I should have a word or two to say about it. I will try to make my remarks as short as possible, because I know the hour is late and that the committee is desirous of

getting through with its work. But there is one question to which I must refer, and that is the statement which was made by the hon. member for Edmonton East, the last time this question was before the house, in regard to the position which the province of Alberta had taken in respect of labour. The statement was made on May 16 of this year. I quote from page 3086 of Hansard:


Mr. Macdonald (Edmonton East):: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: There are some things in it that are not correct.


Charles Edward Johnston: No. I think that is quite correct.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the only point I was referring to is that there is no direct tax on all purchases in the province of Saskatchewan.


Charles Edward Johnston: That may be true; I think there is an exemption on food articles. But, generally speaking, that statement is true. I accept the remark made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
In the remarks made by the hon. member for Edmonton East he stated, as reported in Hansard, that labour was not well recognized in that province. That statement, Mr. Chairman, is of course absolutely untrue, because in the province of Alberta labour has been given every consideration. Not only is that so, but labour has recognized that consideration. Perhaps one of the best ways in which to show how labour appreciates the consideration that has been given in that province is to look up some of the facts.
I hold in my hand a publication put out by the Department of Labour at Ottawa. It deals with strikes and lockouts in Canada during 1949. I think this is probably one of the best ways in which to show whether or not labour is satisfied, because labour expresses itself in no uncertain terms when it is not satisfied. When we look at this publication-and incidentally this was sent to me by the office of the Minister of Labour, therefore I am sure it is right-we find that the information contained in it was taken from the dominion bureau of statistics; therefore I do not think it can be questioned. I turn to page 21 of this issue, which deals with strikes and lockouts by provinces. I indicate only those provinces with which we are concerned, Mr. Chairman, and which were referred to by the hon. member for Edmonton East. I do this in order not to take up too much of the time of the committee. The number of lockouts and

Supply-Labour
strikes in Ontario was 63; in Saskatchewan, 6; in Alberta, 8; in British Columbia, 14. You will notice that Saskatchewan did not have quite as many as Alberta. Alberta is second lowest on the list of lockouts or strikes in the provinces.
A more significant point is the time lost owing to this type of operations. Let me read to the committee the time lost and the per cent of the total. I think it will indicate that labour has not been too dissatisfied in Alberta. Certainly that is true, if one can judge by strikes in Ontario, 28-9; in Saskatchewan, -4.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is '4 of what?


Charles Edward Johnston: That is the time lost through strikes and lockouts.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But -4 of what?


Charles Edward Johnston: The percentage of the total in Ontario was 28-9; in Alberta, -4; in Saskatchewan, -4; in British Columbia, 3-8. The time lost in Alberta was exactly the same as in Saskatchewan, and those two provinces were the lowest of any of the larger provinces. If anybody says that Alberta has not treated labour fairly, these figures completely contradict the statement. Alberta has had an intense interest in seeing that labour is benefited in every possible way. She has undertaken a very extensive program with respect to apprentice training to enable young persons to take their place in the industrial field. In a sincere effort to ensure to the public the best available workmanship in the construction trades and some of the servicing trades, Alberta has established a comprehensive apprenticeship program. There are at the present time approximately 2,300 apprentices in training employed in the following trades: bricklaying and masonry, carpentering, electricians, painting and decorating, plastering, plumbing and steamfitting, gas fitting, sheet metal, auto mechanics and radio technicians.
I may say that the response of the employers and the employees to this apprenticeship training scheme has been excellent indeed. In this field Alberta is next to Ontario in the matter of registered apprenticeships. In the building trades particularly every effort has been made to train as large a number of apprentices as possible to keep abreast with the rapid industrial development in the province. When one considers that the apprenticeship training program commenced only in 1945, it speaks well for the progress that has been made in the province in that regard.
Speaking of the progress which has been made in this field of apprenticeship training,

I hold in my hand the proceedings of the thirty-second annual general meeting of the Canadian Construction Association-


Mr. Gregg:: I wonder whether I might make a suggestion to the hon. member. We shall be discussing training under another item, and perhaps the hon. member would make his point in reply to the hon. member for Edmonton East when we come to the item on apprenticeship.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I will say this-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: In my opinion the point of order is well taken.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think it will save time if I am permitted to continue. I am practically through with what I wish to say on that point, and I will not raise it again when the other item comes up; therefore it will save time if I am permitted to finish now what I have to say.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. I do not think we will save time by discussing matters out of order.


Charles Edward Johnston: I assure you, sir, I shall have to bring it up again on the other item, and of necessity I shall have to repeat what I have already said in this connection. I have just a little bit more on this point.
In the report of the proceedings of the Canadian Construction Association at its thirty-second annual meeting, the chairman had this to say:
The Canadian Construction Association has an enviable record. Its works have been altruistic, and they have been valuable to the industry. Of all its activities, however, its work in the field of apprenticeship has been its outstanding achievement. What has been accomplished in this field is not only of great value to the contractor and the manufacturer, but it has offered to young men in their teens a useful and well paid occupation; a special type of education that is of great value to the future of this growing country.
It has been an inspiration to your committee to note the development of the work in provinces other than Ontario and Quebec. The registration of active apprentices in these provinces is as follows: Manitoba, 512; Saskatchewan, 387; Alberta, 787.
I may say that that is now increased to 2,300. I continue:
British Columbia, 540; Nova Scotia, 534; New Brunswick, 407. Surely these figures tell their own story.
That is the end of the quotation, Mr. Chairman, and it is not necessary for me to deal further with that to show the advantage that labour has been receiving from the province of Alberta in that particular respect. When we speak of the fairness or otherwise with which labour has been treated, I think one of

the best ways to judge that would be by the payrolls in the different provinces and the amount of money the worker receives. In proof of that, Mr. Chairman, I would refer you just a moment to the Labour Gazette of May, 1951, volume 5. This also came from the minister's office, so I am sure it is correct. I turn to table C-3, which is headed "Area and industry summary of employment, payrolls and average weekly wages and salaries." In that table you will see that under employment, at February 1, 1951, Ontario has 185-8; Saskatchewan, 135-4; Alberta, 186-6; British Columbia, 176-8. The average for Canada was 172-4. Alberta stands the highest in the employment figure. Then for February 1, 1951, under payrolls, Ontario was 379; Saskatchewan 250-7; Alberta 357-4; British Columbia 341-6; and the average for Canada 351-9. Alberta stood second, being beaten only by Ontario.
The figures for the average weekly wages and salaries are these: for Ontario, $49.94; Saskatchewan, $44.88; Alberta, $48.74; British Columbia, $50.24, with an average for Canada of $47.76. In this Alberta stood third, and was beaten only by Ontario and British Columbia-and not by very much, either.
But that does not show the whole picture, because when one speaks about dollars received by labour he must also take into consideration the cost of living. I refer to page 758 of the Labour Gazette, where, in table F-2, is shown the index numbers of the cost of living in eight cities of Canada Eft March 1, 1951.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but he did assure the committee that he was nearly finished. I am sure the committee will be interested in the results of his extended research on behalf of Alberta, but I suggest that what he is saying is certainly not in order on this item.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The point of order is well taken, and I would ask the hon. member to discontinue that line of discussion.


Charles Edward Johnston: If the minister objects to my referring to that information, I will say just this. According to the cost of living index, Alberta stands the lowest of any province in Canada. Not only does the index show that Alberta is lowest, but in that province there is no sales tax, as applies in British Columbia and Saskatchewan.
I indicated to the minister, and particularly to his parliamentary assistant who came over to see me last night and exercised his outstanding and persuasive powers, that I would not extend these remarks too long. I intend to keep that promise.
Supply-Labour


Mr. Maclnnis:: The parliamentary assistant must be a complete failure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Get a new parliamentary
assistant.


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member for
Edmonton East claims there is no minister of labour in Alberta. Had he taken the trouble to look at page 417 of the Canadian Parliamentary Guide he would have seen that Alberta has a minister of industries and labour. Someone may say: Oh, well, that is a minister of industries and labour; but it should be understood that there is in that department a labour portfolio. No other departments are as closely associated as those of labour and industry. For that reason the two have been combined so that there could be greater co-ordination than would obtain if they were separated.
The hon. member referred to the five-day waiting period. The fact is that it is not a five-day waiting period, but rather a three-day waiting period. If disability extends for more than five days, the compensation begins with the third day. In Saskatchewan they have a one-day waiting period, and if the disability lasts for more than three days the compensation begins on the second day. Therefore Saskatchewan is better than Alberta by only one complete day. But when one considers that even in Saskatchewan a sales tax has been added, and that there is a higher cost of living, he will see that it makes a great deal of difference. Do not underestimate that.
I shall not say more at this time-unless, of course, I am required to do so. I conclude now, not because I have run short of material; indeed the Department of Labour, and in particular the minister's office, have given me an ample supply of material, and I appreciate it. I wish to make it clear to the House of Commons and the country that labour in Alberta clearly recognizes the benefits Alberta offers in its behalf, and appreciates those benefits.


Albert Frederick Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, in the debate on second reading of a bill to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act I spoke briefly, as I intend to do on this occasion. I said at that time that in Alberta we do not have a minister of labour as such, and I repeat that statement on this occasion.


Angus MacInnis: On a point of order, if the hon. member now speaking is permitted to refer to a debate which took place on second reading of a bill, I suggest he is out of order -as indeed the hon. member for Bow River

Supply-Labour
was when he referred to that subject. We have before us now the estimates of the Department of Labour, and in a short time, if we want to finish at the time we are hoping to finish, we should deal with those estimates. I do not believe we can now afford the time to discuss legislation that has already received the approval of the house.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: The point of order is well taken, and I would ask the hon. member to be brief in his remarks.


Albert Frederick Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I shall refer to item 188. I should hope, however, that time and opportunity would be afforded to me to answer the charges of the hon. member for Bow Island-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Albert Frederick Macdonald: -with regard to the very excellent labour legislation which he says they have on the statute books of Alberta.


Charles Edward Johnston: Hear, hear; so it is.


Albert Frederick Macdonald: Naturally I know there is a minister of industries in Alberta, and he is described as the minister of industries and labour.


Charles Edward Johnston: Exactly.


Albert Frederick Macdonald: But he is
minister of labour in name only. There is no outright minister of labour in Alberta. What a situation! Labour needs a department of its own. Let us hope that some day in Alberta it will have one.
The hon. member for Bow Island referred to apprentice training-


Charles Edward Johnston: Bow River.


Albert Frederick Macdonald: Yes, Bow River. The federal government makes a substantial contribution to apprentice training schools.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mrs. Fairclough:: Had this extended discussion taken place on item 186 we probably would not have missed item 187, on which I wished to ask some questions.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the hon. member have leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
187. Annuities Act administration, $808,684.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I notice that in the annuities branch there are nineteen fewer employees than there were last year. I
notice, too, that the amount paid to agents and postmasters is considerably less. This would seem to indicate less activity in the branch. Would the minister tell us if that is so? Has there been a falling off in the sales of annuities, and how many new annuitants have there been in the last year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: There is a slightly smaller number of employees in the branch, which does not in any sense indicate a slackening off in the work or of interest in the branch. The reduction is part of the general plan which is seen in practically all branches where there have been attempts to economize. Perhaps I could give some other related information. The net receipts during the fiscal year 1950-51, to March 31, 1951, were $59,600,000, and some 21,775 new contracts and certificates were issued.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: New contracts?


Milton Fowler Gregg: New contracts.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I would imagine the
number of new contracts would be directly related to the commissions paid, but I notice that the item for commissions is $15,000 less than last year. Does that mean that the contracts were for relatively lower amounts than in other years, or that that is expected to be the case this year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The amount we have in the estimates this year corresponds with our %ctual expenditures during the past year. Apparently we overestimated last year.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There must have been a slight falling off in the number of new contracts.


Milton Fowler Gregg: No. Perhaps there is a falling off as compared with the number of contracts we expected to sign up.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Are these agents paid a salary and commission, or commission only? Are the agents government appointees, or is anyone at all hired?


Milton Fowler Gregg: They are all paid on a commission basis, but where a promising new employee is taken on, as it is realized that during the early period of his employment he will have to eat, he is allowed a drawing account. After he proves himself he is on commission only. If there is an opening for an agent in any part of Canada the branch will be glad to receive applications from anyone.


Mr. Pearkes:: I understand that there is a limit to the amount of annuity which anyone may obtain. I have had a number of letters

urging that this amount be increased. I should like to know if any consideration has been given to that proposal.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The point touched upon by my hon. friend is really covered by one or two items in the supplementary estimates.


Mr. Knight:: Item 708.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Since I came into the department I have looked with considerable interest at this branch, particularly when parliament was paying so much attention to old age security. In many respects this annuity plan was started as an old age security plan in the years gone by. There are a number of amendments that should be made to the act, but it was not possible to bring them forward at this session. We are going forward with them during the summer and will bring them to the attention of the house either at the fall session or the session following. The matter about which my hon. friend
Supply-Labour
speaks will be covered by one of the amendments. At the present time the maximum is $1,200, but it should be more than that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
190. International labour conferences, $61,118.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: How many conferences were there last year, where were they held and what is expected for this year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: While that information is being obtained, may I say that when the ILO convention for the employment of children on ships was before this house recently my parliamentary assistant was asked for the statutory school-leaving ages in the various provinces, and he promised to provide it when this item was before the committee. With the consent of the committee I would ask that the table I have here be included in the record.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The table follows:



STATUTORY SCHOOL-LEAVING AGES IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
In all the provinces there is a compulsory school attendance law, but exemptions are permitted in case of illness, distance from school or lack of accommodation and, except in British Columbia, for home duties and for employment. Provisions as to exemption are shown below. The laws place restrictions on employment of children of school age during school hours.
Nfld.*	P.E.I.	N.S.*	N.B.	Que.*	Ont.	Man.*	Sq,sk.	Alta.*	B.C.14	15	16,	16	14	16	16	15	15	15Exemption:	unless has com-	cities and towns,	unless has	unless has	unless has	may be fixed	unless has''	unless has	unless haswith certi-	pleted courses	14, elsewhere.	passed grade 11.	completed	matriculation	by district.	passed grade 8.	passed grade	completedficate for	in public	15 or 16 may	elementary	or equivalent.	14-16 if not	9 or	course ata stated	school.	be fixed	school.	employed in	equivalent.	nearest publicperiod, but	Attendance	locally.	14	Exemption:	industry,	Exemption:	school andif child is	required for	by resolution	Exemption:	Under 14, for	home duties	(c).	Exemption:	transport tounder 12	only 75% of	Exemption:	in rural	Not more	not more than	or farm work.	Not more	higher schoolfor not more	term except in	(1) If 12, for	districts un-	than 6	6 weeks in	than 6	not provided.than 2	Charlottetown	not more than	less has passed	weeks in	term (a);	Exemption:	weeks in	months in a	and towns where	6 weeks in	grade 8.	year (o).	14-16, if home	Over 12, not	term (a).	school year,	90% attendance	year (d);	permit or	more than 4	unless with	is required .	(2) 13, with	Exemption:	employment	weeks in	approval of	employment	Not more than	certificate	year (6).	Commissioner	Exemption:	and medical	6 weeks in	granted.	(c).	(1) For poverty;	certificates	term (a).	Home permit	(2) If 12, for not	and attending	unnecessary	more than 6	night school.	in rural	weeks in year Id).	districts.	(a)	If services needed in husbandry, home duties, maintenance of self or others.(b)	If services needed in husbandry or home duties.(c)	If services needed for maintenance of self or others.(d)	If services needed in husbandry or some other necessary employment.
* Child reaching school-leaving age required to attend school to end of school year in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Quebec, to end of term in Manitoba, and in Alberta, to end of June term if age reached in that term.
t A bill to raise the school-leaving age in Newfoundland from 14 to 15 years was introduced in 1951.
4992	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Labour

In the calendar year 1950 there were thirteen conferences related to ILO, including the main meeting in June.
Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Is the international labour office an independent body or is it in any way associated with the United Nations?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It has a very distinct relationship with the United Nations. As my hon. friend knows, it survived the old League of Nations, came to Montreal at McGill during the war years, and then went back to Geneva. Not only is there a constant liaison between it and the United Nations, but the work of the ILO proper is under the general jurisdiction of the United Nations.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does it have a separate budget?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes. By agreement signed on December 14, 1946, it was brought into official relationship with the United Nations, although retaining its identity as a separate organization. It is now one of the specialized agencies associated with the economic and social council of the United Nations.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This is not the time to be asking for long answers, but would policy matters come within its own jurisdiction, and is it to that extent an independent organization? Or is it dependent for its policy upon the larger organization?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am going to ask my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, to answer that question.


Mr. Martin:: My hon. friend knows it much better than I. I happened to be on the committee when the relations between ILO and the United Nations were formulated in 1946 through the economic and social council. The international labour office is a tripartite body, as it represents labour, employers and government. In so far as it keeps within the purposes outlined in its statute it is a policy-making body, but as an auxiliary body of the United Nations it makes an annual report to the assembly of the United Nations.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister says that it is a policy-making body.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under the economic and social council of the United Nations, which itself is an organ of the United Nations.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is the government satisfied that its policy is sensible and' constructive, or, in plain words, that it is serving a useful purpose which would warrant our continuing to co-operate? May I say that I hope it is.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not think I am qualified to answer that question myself, but my deputy 80709-317J
Supply-Labour
minister has been on the governing body of ILO for a few years but never had an opportunity to attend its meetings. I insisted that he attend the main meeting in June this year, and he arrived back just a few days ago. I put exactly the same question to him, and without any hesitation he replied in the affirmative. On the basis of that, I place a good deal of importance on the work of this organization.


Angus MacInnis: I should like to say a word on this - matter. I had the opportunity last year of attending the ILO conference, but it is not for that reason that I say it is a very worth-while organization. Any organization that brings employers and' workers together is worth while. In the ILO the workers are referred to as workers and not as labour. The three parts are government, employers and workers. In dealing with matters that come before the organization for consideration, the workers consider them separately by themselves and the employers do likewise. The voting is conducted separately, but when the three groups meet in general session the decision is made on the total vote of the three parts. The affirmative votes and negative votes on the three levels are taken, and the item is rejected or approved in that way. I would say it is very much worth while.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
191. Labour Gazette, authorized by Labour Department Act, $120,948.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have noticed that
throughout the estimates there is a certain pattern, and I have selected the item for the Labour Gazette because there are so few employees. There seems to be a tendency for more permanent and fewer temporary employees throughout the departments, which I think is commendable because I know that in some departments people go on for years and years on a temporary basis and have no real security. With respect to the Labour Gazette, there are six permanent and six temporary positions, but from reading the list it is not apparent which are which. So far as the titles of the positions are concerned, unless some of them are on a parttime basis it would appear that they might all qualify for permanent employment. With reference to this small number, will the minister tell us which classes are temporary employees?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The permanents are the administrative officer-that is the senior man; the editor, grade 4; editor, grade 3; editor, grade 1; principal clerk and clerk, grade 4. The temporaries are editor, grade 2; editor, grade 1; clerk, grade 2A; stenographer, grade 2B; stenographer, grade 2A, and typist, grade 2A.

Supply-Labour


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Some of those have been discontinued this year. That was last year's list.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One of the permanents has been discontinued.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I did not catch the question.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The minister read last year's classification.


Milton Fowler Gregg: 1951; it is the same.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: They have been changed. For instance, the grade 4 editor is not listed this year.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, that was last year's list. I should amend that by adding that the grade 4 editor is net listed this year. The others remain the same amongst the permanents. Of the temporaries that I read, the grade A clerk has been replaced by a typist grade 1.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Your grade 2A typist has been replaced by a grade 2A clerk.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes. The number is exactly the same, but the classification of some of the junior ranks amongst the temporaries is different.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am more concerned with the number of people in all departments- and I am using this as an example-who work for years and years and are still on the temporary staff. While I realize it is a question that probably should be discussed with the civil service commission, I also think it is a matter that we should bear in mind when we are discussing the labour estimates. When consideration is given to the management of the various departments, I hope that this is one point that will be given very serious consideration, because I know of people who have been in various departments for fifteen and twenty years and are still temporaries.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I quite agree with my hon. friend. We shall be glad to do anything we can to further that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
192. To provide for the effective organization and use of agricultural manpower, including recruiting, transporting and placing workers on farms and related industries and assistance to the provinces pursuant to agreements that may be entered into by the Minister of Labour with the provinces and approved by the governor in council, $255,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: This item is to provide for the effective organization and use of agricultural manpower, including recruiting, transporting and placing workers on farms. It may sound like a rather odd complaint, but I feel sorry to see that there is a decrease in this item, inasmuch as I assume it means that the work is not as
(Mr. Gregg.]
successful as the department would have liked. I recall to the minds of members of the committee the remark which was made yesterday by the hon. member for Huron North, which I thought was full of significance. He warned us that as things are going now we might very easily face food shortages. He pointed out what we all know very well, that if it were not that the farmers are still content to work much longer hours than anybody else we would be in difficulties right now. I should like to ask the minister to say a word as to the success or failure of this enterprise, which seems to me to be of very great importance.


Milton Fowler Gregg: First of all I want to reassure my hon. friend. The smaller item does not in any way indicate that the project has been unsuccessful.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister give us some figures?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It has proved to be very successful. In a word I think I can say the reason for the smaller figure this year is that due to the tighter manpower situation, there will be fewer people who will be able to be moved from one part of Canada to another than there have been in other years. With reference to the organized movement of farm labour carried out in the calendar year 1950, first of all let me deal with the intraprovincial movements. The figures are as follows: apple pickers, Nova Scotia, 260; beet harvesters, Quebec, 200; potato pickers, New Brunswick, 1,000; potato pickers, Prince Edward Island, 400; beet blockers, Quebec, 1,000. These are just round figures. Then there were fruit pickers, students, Ontario, 1,600. Those are movements within the provinces concerned.
Then there are the interprovincial movements which are as follows: Grain harvesters from Ontario and Quebec to the prairies, 2,258; hay harvesters from the prairies and the Atlantic region to Ontario, 1,200-incidentally those for the year 1951 are being recruited at the present time and some are being moved; then there were potato pickers from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island, 677; hay harvesters from Nova Scotia to Prince Edward Island, 43; general farm workers from Newfoundland to Ontario and Quebec, 271; fruit pickers, students, from Quebec to Ontario, 112; beet blockers from Saskatchewan to Manitoba, 46.
Then we have an interesting international movement for which the figures are as follows: Potato pickers from Manitoba to North Dakota, 369; potato pickers from Quebec and New Brunswick to Maine, 2,236; sugar beet harvesters from Saskatchewan to

Montana, 400; maple sugar harvesters from Quebec to New England, 400; tobacco curers from the southern states to Ontario and Quebec, 1,652. I think these figures will indicate that this program is playing a very important part in making labour sufficiently mobile to be moved from one part of Canada to another in order to save the crops and harvests in the various parts of Canada.
Incidentally I think that the hon. member for Nanaimo will agree that a project such as this, which under reasonably good circumstances moves Canadians from one part of Canada to another, with an opportunity of returning to their families within a reasonable period, affords them an opportunity of better understanding the country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vocational Training Co-ordination Act, 1942-
193. Administration, $30,431.
George Randolph Pearkes: I would like to say a word about vote No. 193, because I was rather closely connected with the vocational training movement at the close of the last war. I have in my constituency a small but efficient school, which has a capable staff and a lot of admirable equipment. It performs a useful service in helping to maintain the motor vehicles of the various departments of government. But I feel that full advantage is not being taken of that school, and that a larger number of students could attend the school. Most of the classes deal with the maintenance* of motor vehicles, particularly those which are connected with logging and lumbering. There are also special classes to train young men in the use of the power saw and other modem lumbering appliances.
The point I want to make particularly at this moment is that it is not being used to its full capacity, and at the same time we hear that the armed services are experiencing a shortage of tradesmen. Could there not be a little closer co-ordination, as there was during the war, between this vocational training system and the training of tradesmen, as we call them, in the armed services? I should like to suggest to the minister that these classes which are now being held in these vocational training schools-I speak only with knowledge of the one in my constituency-be extended so that they could train the tradesmen who are urgently needed in the armed services.
There is one other point. I still feel that we have not given the fullest possible opportunity, even to the men who were discharged and who were taken into these training courses, to qualify themselves. I
Supply-Labour
think there was a limitation on the number of courses that they might take, but I hope that that might yet be extended.
It is with some concern that I notice there has been a general reduction of over $1 million in these three items. I would hope that further consideration might be given and, rather than reducing the activities of vocational training at this time, encouragement might be given to extension of these facilities.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am glad that the hon. member has said that, because it is exactly what we are doing. A little later we shall come to an item in the supplementary estimates for the special purpose he has mentioned. The whole field of vocational training is being extended, even though it is not reflected in the amount of money in the main estimates. The reason for that is that there will perhaps be fewer people, due to fuller employment, available to take full-time training such as this. We are now training men on behalf of national defence, for the army and the air force. I understand that an application will be coming from that department for the navy as well, for training similar to that conducted during the last war. As the hon. member knows, the federal government pays the full amount of that training.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is all of that
training conducted in educational institutions? How much of it is in the actual course of the practising trades?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is all done in co-operation with the provinces, and in vocational schools.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is all of it
conducted in that manner? I remember being through the Ford plant some time ago, and I thought I saw some people there who were- I shall not say apprentices, for perhaps that word has a technical significance-quasiapprentices. Does that mean they were practising temporarily in the plant what they had learned in school?


Mr. Marlin:: The Ford company has its own school.


Milton Fowler Gregg: As my colleague says, they have their own school. At the same time, in some plants such as that, the command makes arrangements direct with a plant for the training of personnel rather than doing it through these schools.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When the minister says "command"-


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is national defence.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I still think that this training is all being done in what I might call the classroom or the laboratory, and not in the factory. In other words, it does not include apprenticeship?

Supply-Labour


Milton Fowler Gregg: In the past practically all of this has been utilized in the vocational schools coming under the provinces. As a result of recommendations that have been made recently by the advisory council, we are exploring the possibility of establishing courses on the job.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I ask to what extent apprenticeship is encouraged in the skilled trades?


Milton Fowler Gregg: To answer the hon. member briefly, I know that our advisory committee on apprenticeship which met at Ottawa not long ago, which I attended with great interest, and which represents those in that field from all the provinces as well as the federal government, is sponsoring apprenticeship training to the greatest degree possible. I have some figures here, if they would be of interest.


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: May I interrupt to point out that we shall need unanimous consent to resume at two o'clock instead of three o'clock after the luncheon recess. I hope that we have that consent, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter Edward Harris: There is one other thing. May we have unanimous consent to rise and report progress in order to pass some minor amendments to some legislation which has come from the Senate and which the Minister of Justice is prepared to explain?


Mr. Higgins:: On a matter of privilege, Mr. Chairman, last evening, during the discussion of the estimates of the Department of National Revenue, I made the statement that a radio station to be operated by Messrs. Stirling and Jameson at St. John's, Newfoundland, had received an allocation of steel from the Minister of Defence Production and that another vital project in which I was interested had not received an allocation. Today I am informed that that is incorrect; that not only did that station receive steel, but some three other stations received it. I am told *that the amount of steel that was given the station in St. John's was not sufficient to make one motorcar. I suggested also that the allocation was made because of the fact the station was supporting the Liberal regime. I wish to withdraw the remarks I made, as from information I received this morning, the previous information given me was incorrect.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice) moved: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 391, to amend the Criminal Code.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not think we need a lengthy explanation, but can the minister tell us whether these are simply the amendments which he told us, on a previous occasion, would be made in the Senate?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 403, to establish national standards for dairy products and to regulate interprovincial and international trade in dairy products.
He said; Perhaps I should say that this amendment is just to correct a minor typographical error, and that it clarifies rather than changes the sense.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.


Walter Edward Harris: ;
That when the house rises at one o'clock p.m. this day it resume its sitting at two o'clock p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at two o'clock. SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
Vocational Training Co-ordination Act, 1942-
193. Administration, $30,431.

Mi. Gregg: I left unanswered one question when the committee rose before one o'clock, as to the development of the apprenticeship training. I think I could answer it briefly this wise. In the seven provinces with whom we have agreements there are three times as many registered for apprenticeship training as there were in 1945.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: How many are there?


Milton Fowler Gregg: About 10,800. After 1945 there were two or three years in which it was inflated, owing to veterans training. Then it decreased in 1949, and since 1949 has been on the increase.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I presume these apprentices are all registered in their respective trades, are they?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vocational Training Co-ordination Act, 1942-
195.	Payments to the provinces for capital expenditures for vocational schools, buildings and equipment, $1,250,000.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: With respect to this item there was an appropriation of $2,250,000, in 1950-51, of which it is expected that $1,379,000 will be spent. Can the minister say why the appropriation was not used? Is it the old story of lack of building materials?


Milton Fowler Gregg: This was a building program for vocational training. It has been pretty well completed. During the years preceding there had been a very heavy program, and this was all that it was felt the provinces and the federal government needed to fill the needs.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Then we overestimated last year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It was overestimated last year in the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Government employees compensation-
196.	Administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $59,716.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I notice there is a substantial increase. Will the minister say a word with regard to that?


Milton Fowler Gregg: This is to take care of the administration of the employees compensation act for those employees of Canada not under provincial government administration. The Government Employees Compensation Act, 1947, chapter 18, Statutes of Canada, 1947, which replaces the former act, chapter 30, Revised Statutes of Canada 1927, provides compensation where employees of His Majesty
Supply-Labour
are killed or suffer injuries or industrial diseases while performing their duties, at the same rate as is provided for employees of persons other than His Majesty under the law of the province in which the accidents occur, the liability for and the amount of compensation to be determined by the authority established under such law, which is usually the provincial workmen's compensation board.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thought the minister spoke about this as applying particularly to cases outside provincial jurisdiction.


Milton Fowler Gregg: No; I was in error in giving that impression, Mr. Chairman. It applies to persons serving the federal government within provincial jurisdiction.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understand that they are not under the provincial compensation board; nevertheless they are cases that are dealt with substantially on the same basis.


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is correct.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Are they not dealt with by the provincial board, and then this government reimburses the board?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is right. The provincial boards act as the agent of the federal government for the purpose of the federal government employees.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-*
199.	To provide for payment to the national film board for educational films for exhibition, $24,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure the minister
would be glad to hear me say that one of the films that was produced for his department that some of us saw in the railway committee room some time ago was particularly well done. I do not say that to make any comparison with the others, but I have in mind the film on labour-management co-operation. I thank the minister for arranging for members of parliament to see that film. I should like to suggest, however, that he arrange a special showing of the film for certain people who might gain from it. I have in mind the members of the civil service commission, perhaps the treasury board and deputy ministers, and all those who have to do with employee relations in the federal government service.
I will not say any more. I will simply say that I think there is room for improvement in management-labour relations in the government service, and that it might be all to the good if the people concerned saw this film.

Supply-Labour


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You went so quickly over item 198 that I did not get a chance to ask a question. It has to do with vocational training for discharged members of Canada's armed forces. That has evidently reached the stage of such small compass that one wonders how the organization can be kept going at all.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Other personnel not ex-members of the armed forces are being trained in the same school. In other words the place of the veterans in the vocational schools is being taken by younger people now, and this amount is kept separate to take care of the last few veterans who are under vocational training. Of course during the coming years there will be a number of veterans, from those who come out of the armed forces that are now overseas, who will be entitled to this same training.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The same conditions will apply to those coming out as to those of world war II?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The other legislation that was put through the house during this session covers those on exactly the same terms as those of world war II.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
200.	To provide for expenses that may be incurred in the arranging for and the movement of workers from outside Canada to work on farms and other essential industry in Canada when Canadian labour is not available to meet the need; including costs connected with the supervision and welfare of persons already immigrated to Canada under former authorized labour movements and administrative expenses connected therewith, $667,956.
Gordon Francis Higgins: I have a couple of questions to ask. I think the minister said that 271 persons were brought to Newfoundland. Can he say what happened to them? Are they still on the island or on the mainland? Again, when he is answering on the general item, would he state how many people outside Canada were brought in this year, and if they have all remained.


Milton Fowler Gregg: It will be understood that item 200 is quite different from the one we were discussing this morning. The one we discussed this morning had reference to the movement of personnel within Canada.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I realize that.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The one we discussed this morning dealt with the federal-provincial plan to take care of harvesters, primarily. This item represents an effort the Department of Labour makes to help in moving groups of new Canadians. This is done in association with the Department of Citizenship and

Immigration. We undertake to find employment and to give the organized groups of new workers a certain amount of care while they are proceeding to their employment. I do not think that the Atlantic provinces have received many under this plan.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I realize that. I was simply asking the minister to tell me what had happened.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I believe the hon. member would like to have information with respect to those who were recruited in Newfoundland to do farm work in other parts of Canada, and what happened to them after that.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Yes; did they go back?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not think I can give accurate information as to what happened to them after they had completed their work. However, perhaps I can partly answer the hon. member's question by stating that last year there were 336 who came from Newfoundland into central Canada, or other parts of Canada, for agricultural purposes. Then, for track work there were 181, for mining 49, for lumbering and logging nil. Those are all for whom we have records.


Gordon Francis Higgins: There does appear to be a definite trend in moving away from the province to work in other parts of Canada. I am wondering how it will affect the province in the future.


Milton Fowler Gregg: That, of course, is an age-old question which I am sure the hon. member would not expect me to explore this afternoon. However, as he knows, in the east we are subject to seasonal unemployment. One does not look with a great deal of enthusiasm upon encouraging the exodus of Atlantic province people to the rest of Canada; nevertheless under these auspices, and with an opportunity to earn money, to take part in the development of the country, to see the rest of Canada and to go back to their own homes when their employment opens again, I think it is a much better plan than loafing around home.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Thank you. How many have been brought in from outside to work?


Milton Fowler Gregg: My colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, will answer that question.


Walter Edward Harris: I understand the hon. member would like to know how many came from outside and went to Newfoundland.


Gordon Francis Higgins: No; to Canada generally.


Walter Edward Harris: During the last year 73,912 came to Canada, of whom 204 said their destination was Newfoundland.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Is there any definite amount required for the whole of Canada?


Milton Fowler Gregg: At the present time not very many, as the hon. member knows. The filling of vacancies in Newfoundland has gone on rapidly this last year. I noticed in figures I saw the other day that 58 per cent fewer people registered in our unemployment office there than there were this time last year.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I was referring to woodworkers, for whom there is a demand on the mainland of Canada. Are many being brought in for that particular trade, and are there many being brought from Newfoundland to work on the mainland? I understand there is a great demand.


Milton Fowler Gregg: We have had no requests.


Clarence Gillis: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration said that last year there were 204 from outside Canada who went to Newfoundland. It seems to me that moving Newfoundlanders into Ontario -


Milton Fowler Gregg: Temporarily.


Clarence Gillis: Possibly so; but what I am interested in is-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Like some civil servants- temporary-permanent.


Clarence Gillis: -what classifications came from outside to Newfoundland. It looks foolish to bring people in and at the same time drive them out.


Walter Edward Harris: A large proportion of the 204 were technicians being brought to Newfoundland by the government of the province for the purpose of increasing productive capacity and industrial capacity to absorb labour.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I notice in this item the expression, "including costs connected with the supervision and welfare of persons", and so on. There is an item for hospitalization and medical aid, which is not very large. Who assumes responsibility for these people in the event of their becoming public charges? Does the government accept responsibility for them for a certain period of time after their arrival in Canada? If so, does that come under this item.


Milton Fowler Gregg: After arrival in Canada they may call for a short period of time at one or other of the hostels. If they should be ill at that time it is the responsibility of the federal authorities. However, when they are placed in employment, in common with other Canadians, they become the responsibility of the provincial authorities.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I understand this item
includes an amount to be spent in assisting
Supply-Labour
the movement of immigrants to Canada to work in the sugar beet fields in, for example, my own province of Manitoba. If that is so, I should like to ask a question of the minister. As he knows, the question as to the welfare and continuing employment of these people has been the subject matter of some concern and even some controversy in my province. I understand federal money is expended to help bring these people over, and that it is done at the request of the Manitoba Sugar Company.


Milton Fowler Gregg: At the request of the province, so far as we are concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right, at the request of the province; but I believe it is correct to say that so far as Manitoba is concerned the province is simply passing on a request made to it by the Manitoba Sugar Company. I understand that as a rule these people are brought over at the season of the year in which they are most needed in the sugar beet fields, and that when the fall comes along and there is no further need for their services in that connection, in places where there are contracts with the Manitoba Sugar Company, these persons find themselves having to report to the employment offices in Winnipeg which come under the jurisdiction of the minister. It would seem that this does present a problem.
I quite approve the policy of aiding immigration to this country, particularly when it is on a selective basis or when it is on humanitarian grounds. But it does seem to me that, if we are going to spend federal money assisting a company like the Manitoba Sugar Company to get over here employees whom they need, that company has some responsibility to see to it that these people are continued in employment and not thrown back on the various governments when the company has no further need for them. In the spring the company may want them back. If the company is going to act that way I do not think they should get any financial assistance from the public. On the other hand, if we do provide assistance I suggest that some responsibility rests upon the company. I should be glad to have some comment from the minister on this matter.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I know of the matter to which my hon. friend refers. We have had no serious complaints from those brought in or from the municipal authorities that people had been left on their hands. The information I have had so far is that after they are through working for the sugar beet company, in the main they find employment in some other field of activity. I shall be glad to look into the matter during the recess.

Supply-Labour


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, they come to the minister's officials to ask for employment. It would not appear to be accepted as the responsibility of the company, despite the fact that they have had a definite form of assistance.	.


Milton Fowler Gregg: They come to the national employment service to see what openings there are, just the same as other Canadians who might be seeking employment anywhere in Canada.


Mr. Maltais:: Has there been any request for outside labour in connection with the development on the north shore of the St. Lawrence at Seven Islands?	-


Milton Fowler Gregg: No.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Following the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the minister stated that so far there had been no protests from the municipalities. I do not suppose any municipality would protest if only a small measure of assistance was being required. The fact is that we have been going through a period of fairly full employment. These seasonal employees are being quite readily absorbed, but I am thinking of the situation which caused' me to make some extended remarks when we were discussing the unemployment insurance regulations earlier in the session. If we had even a minor recession many of these people would become a definite charge upon the municipality, because the provinces do not enter into the picture. I do not want to speak at any length on this matter, but I feel we must take this question under consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment Insurance Act. 1940-
201.	Administration, including expenditures incurred in connection with the activities of the national employment service as delegated by the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 88 of the act, $23,847,199.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: When, the unemployment insurance advisory committee reported for the year ending March 31, 1950, they stated:
The committee has considered the advisability of Instituting a new actuarial investigation.
After remarking that the time for this *eemed inopportune, they went on to say:
The committee does intend, however, to have partial investigations made on the basis of information on a sample of contributors from which it hopes to obtain guidance in its future recommendations.
Can the minister say whether any progress has been made along that line?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The report has not finally been dealt with, but is being carefully considered. I have nothing to report on that as yet.
iMr. Gregg.]


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There is another point I should like to bring up in connection with the unemployment insurance commission, the unemployment insurance advisory committee and any other committees which may be set up. I notice that item 714 of the supplementary estimates refers to an advisory committee. Some time ago I asked for information with respect to the number of male and female employees in the unemployment insurance commission. I find that there are 3,900 male and approximately 3,000 female employees. As all hon. members know, there is a large female labour force in the country.
Without attempting at all to upset the present standing of the commission, I suggest to the minister that if and when there is a vacancy consideration should be given to the appointment of a woman.. If there is no prospect of a change in the near future, I suggest that a woman be appointed as an additional commissioner. I suggest also that there be a woman member on the unemployment insurance advisory committee. I think it goes without saying that no one understands the problems of women workers better than a woman, and I believe the large female labour force should have representation on each of these bodies.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Under the present statute one member of the unemployment insurance commission is appointed after consultation with the national labour organization; one member is appointed after consultation with the national employer organization, and the chairman is appointed by the government. I shall be glad to give consideration to the suggestions of the hon. member. I think our advisory committees generally have woman members.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It might be difficult to
enlarge the commission when it is appointed in that way. I know a commission may be, made unwieldy because of persons appointed to represent specific segments of the population; nevertheless these problems present themselves from time to time for and on behalf of women, and I think there should be a woman commissioner.


Mr. Hatfield:: Has the minister considered the payment of allowances for sickness?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the minister answers perhaps I may be permitted to say a word. I suggest that along with the study of annuity matters that the minister told us this morning was to be made between now and the time parliament meets again, he might also consider amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to extend the coverage, at least under certain circumstances, to periods of illness.
The minister knows from debates that have taken place in former sessions that

some of us, the hon. member for Vancouver East and I in particular, have emphasized how unfair we feel it is, and how unfair the workers feel it is, that a worker on unemployment insurance, because there is no work for him, is cut off benefits if he happens to take ill, even though there is still no work for him. There are still wider changes that some of us might advocate, but it seems to me this is an immediate request that should be met, namely that when a worker goes on benefits and qualifies for them in the usual way, he should not have those benefits cut off because he takes ill. It has happened to a good many workers who have been on benefits and have not known of this regulation that on a certain day of the week when they were supposed to report they have sent their wives to collect the benefits and the wife is asked where her husband is. She says that he is at home ill, and immediately he is cut off unemployment insurance benefit, at a time when he needs it more than ever, despite the fact that there is still no job for him.
We have developed that argument so fully in previous debates that I do not need to go into it in detail now, but I say hopefully that I trust the minister will give the matter very active study during the recess. When he consults his departmental officials on the matter I am sure he will find that it has been studied by his officials and there must be quite a body of material on it.
One other supporting argument I should like to make is that away back in the November, 1944, issue of "Canadian Affairs", a pamphlet put out by the wartime information board which was sent mainly to the troops overseas to tell them what was going on back home, this question was dealt with as follows:
Unemployment Insurance only covers the worker who has lost a job and is still available for employment. If you are sick, you aren't available for employment-so you don't get unemployment insurance. Once health insurance is finally put into operation, it probably won't be long until the Unemployment Insurance Act is amended to provide for payment of benefits during the period of a workman's illness. If that happens then a worker off for sickness would get unemployment insurance sickness benefit to make up for lost wages and would have his medical and hospital expenses met out of the health insurance fund-to which he has been contributing.
I recognize that we have not yet the health insurance which that very pamphlet forecast as something to be expected in the near future. But I suggest that if the Department of National Health and Welfare is too slow in proceeding with health insurance, the Minister of Labour might give a lead in this field by bringing in the kind of amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act that was
Supply-Labour
forecast in that "Canadian Affairs" pamphlet sent overseas to the troops in November, 1944.
I need not go into the matter further, because the records of Hansard are full of arguments on the point. In this corner of the house we have felt at times that we had sufficiently made our point to hope that the amendment would be forthcoming soon. I hope the minister's study between now and the fall will bear fruit.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I can assure my hon. friend of a study at least.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to point out that considerable study is necessary on the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. For example, in many industries the worker pays into a sick benefit fund. He pays for that insurance against a time of unemployment because of sickness. At the same time he contributes to the unemployment insurance fund which provides for benefits during a period of unemployment. When the worker takes ill he is entitled to collect the insurance for which he has been paying because he is not able to carry on his regular work. The sick benefit that he draws amounts to perhaps ten per cent of what his normal wages would be. Under the circumstances, with the worker away from work because of sickness and collecting insurance that he has paid for, I think he is also legitimately entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits for which he has already paid, because he is only receiving about ten per cent of his normal wages.
I refer particularly to the steel and coal industries in my part of the country. The worker is placed in the position that if he applies for unemployment insurance under the circumstances I have described, the company will immediately take the stand that he has severed his connection with them as an employee, and his pension rights are affected. He has a pension plan, and if he ceases his employment then he loses his pension rights.
This subject has been a controversial one for a number of years in my part of the country. I am questioned about it all the time. I think the worker is entitled to the unemployment insurance for which he has paid. I think he is entitled to collect the sick benefit insurance for which he has paid. I am asked whether a man should apply for unemployment insurance, and I have to warn him that if he does, it is taken as an indication that he has severed his connection with the company, that he is no longer an employee, and that he will lose out on the pension scheme in which he has participated to protect his future.

Supply-Labour
There has been a lot of wrangling about the matter. When the minister is making an analysis of the problem, I think something should be done to correct the situation. In the first place the worker is entitled to the sickness insurance for which he has paid, and which amounts to about ten per cent of his earnings. Second, the worker is entitled to collect unemployment insurance benefits, because he has already paid for them. Some understanding should be reached also with these large companies that a worker's pension rights will not be affected if he applies for unemployment insurance under circumstances such as I have described.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940-
202.	Government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund, $27,500,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I take it that the government's contribution is larger because total wages for the year are larger?


Milton Fowler Gregg: And a larger working force generally.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is the total now at the credit of the fund, and how is it invested?


Milton Fowler Gregg: 


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How does that compare with a year ago?


Milton Fowler Gregg: As of March 31, 1950, the total was $582,646,972.52. The figure for 1951 is also as of March 31. The investments are all in either Canadian government or Canadian National Railway bonds.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister read those figures again?


Milton Fowler Gregg: 1951, $664,580,376.79.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Just the
millions.


Milton Fowler Gregg: $664 million in 1951, $582 million in 1950, and $529 million in 1949.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I was a little surprised, considering the fact there was a period of rather full employment, that notwithstanding the additional contribution of some $25 million the fund has gone down something over $80 million.


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, it has gone up. I gave the 1951 figure first.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then I
reverse my surprise and express my surprise that it has gone up so much.


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is because of the full
employment.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In the report it refers to contributions paid other than by stamp. Would that mean through the use of meters or some other form of contribution to the fund?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Meter machines or bulk payments by cheque.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: But it is all by contributions?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
204. To provide for the payment of unemployment assistance to certain residents of Newfoundland to give effect to the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council and such assistance shall be deemed to be a benefit or payment within the meaning of sections 33 and 67 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940, $500,000.
Gordon Francis Higgins: There is a great difference, Mr. Chairman, between the amount provided this year, $500,000, and the amount provided last year, which was $4 million. Can the minister fell me why there is that big drop?


Milton Fowler Gregg: This is strictly in accord with the union agreement. As the hon. member will recall, it was felt that there would be a great deal of unemployment after union, and this measure was adopted as a means of taking up that slack over the first few years.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I understand it now. Would the minister be able to tell me whether any consideration has been given to providing unemployment insurance for fishermen? Has any progress been made in that regard?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, the report is now being studied.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Does it appear to be favourable?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Answer next session.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
707. Departmental administration-further amount required, $13,057.
Stanley Howard Knowles: There is at least one matter under item 707 which I should like to draw to the minister's attention. I want to be sure he has plenty of homework to do between now and the fall session. I would urge him to study a number of items in the briefs presented to the government this year by the labour congresses, but for the moment I am concentrating on one. It is to be found on page 15 of the memorandum presented to the government of Canada by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada on April 10, 1951. The paragraph reads as follows:
Another very important and necessary amendment that we seek-

The reference is to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.
-is a provision in this act that requires an employer or employers to bargain collectively with a group of associated unions representing the employees and who are jointly acting through the medium of a properly constituted joint council, committee or division.
Railway workers are particularly interested in this request. They are interested because of experience they have had which has been both favourable and unfavourable. To a certain extent groups of unions are recognized by the railways as expressing themselves through one voice. In so far as that has been recognized voluntarily by the railways, it has been all to the good. But on the other hand the railway workers have also had the experience of the railway companies endeavouring to splinter off some of their smaller unions. I need not go into the details to illustrate the point. The minister knows that both of the statements I have made are correct.
There is some practice of this principle on a voluntary basis, but there are also instances where this principle is not practised. The railway workers are a bit apprehensive of what may happen when the present agreements expire. They feel that they are entitled to have their industry considered as a whole, and they feel very strongly that the request set out in the memorandum presented by the trades and labour congress should be given favourable consideration. It does seem to be a measure that calls for amendments to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. I ask the minister to give sympathetic and active consideration to this request.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Annuities Act-
708. Administration-further amount required, $50,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: This subject was up before, but at the time we were not actually on the Annuities Act item, so I thought I would hold my remarks until we reached this item in the supplementary estimates. I was glad to hear the minister say this morning that study is being given to possible amendments to the Annuities Act. I was particularly glad to hear him say something which sounded to me as though he realized the necessity for making provisions to enable people to mesh the provisions they make under the Annuities Act with our old age security legislation. I hope that the minister will pursue that study.
I am still remembering a promise that was made about three years ago to the effect that at "a succeeding session we would have a special committee of the house to go into this whole question. I shall not press the minister
Supply-Labour
now for that committee, because he said this morning the government might be bringing in legislation to amend the act. If he does not bring in that legislation in the fall or during the session of 1952, I suggest a committee be set up to examine the possibility of making improvements in the act and in the administration. The minister knows that after we have talked on all other aspects of the matter, it still rankles in the minds of a great many Canadians that an injustice was done when, by order in council in 1948, the basic interest rate, on the basis of which annuities are paid, was reduced from four per cent to three per cent. I hope that in the studies of the problem the minister will not skirt around that question, but will give attention to the possibility of restoring the four per cent interest rate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Annuities Act-
710. Notwithstanding the Government Annuities Act, to authorize the Minister of Labour in consequence of the transfer of employees from the original employers to the new employers specified in the details of the estimates to enter into contracts with the original employers and the new employers, to provide that the new employers shall, effective on the dates respectively specified in the details become parties to group annuity contracts specified in the said details respectively in the place of the original employers with respect to employees to whom those contracts applied and who were transferred to the new employers and for the application of the contracts in respect of service with the original employers and the new employers and for such other terms as the minister deems necessary for the maintenance and continuity of pension rights of the employees under those contracts, and to provide for payments in the current and subsequent fiscal years in accordance with the contracts so entered into out of the government annuities account, $1.
Milton Fowler Gregg: I think the committee should have a word of explanation on the three items, 709, 710 and 711. They result from the fact we have not made the administrative amendments to the act. In each case these are things that should be done for the benefit of the annuitants. Our purpose cannot be accomplished other than in this manner until the amendments are brought in, when such dollar items will be unnecessary.
So far as the first item is concerned, it deals with a couple who applied for an annuity and paid their money to the agent. As hon. members know, thirty days after the issue of the contract the person buying the annuity can change his mind. This couple changed their mind and wrote to the agent giving him written proof to that effect. He was ill and did not receive the letter. Consequently, under the act, they could not get their money back. This item makes it possible.

Supply-Labour
The other two votes cover cases in much the same category.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
713. To provide for expenses that may be incurred in the arranging for and the movement of workers from outside Canada to work on farms and other essential industry in Canada when Canadian labour is not available to meet the need; including costs connected with the supervision and welfare of persons already immigrated to Canada under former authorized labour movements and administrative expenses connected therewith-further amount required, $131,200.
Stanley Howard Knowles: This item is to provide a further amount for the same purpose as was set out under vote No. 200 in the main estimates. I note that in the break-down in the back of the book this item of $131,200 includes $100,000 for transportation costs. If I might refer for a moment to item 200, which was for a total of $667,956, I note that it includes transportation costs to the extent of $200,000. Between the two items, the total amount of transportation costs is $300,000. I take it that that is money that is spent in providing the actual transportation for immigrants to Canada under the provisions of this vote. Can the minister tell me how much of that $300,000 is being spent on bringing workers to Canada to be employed by or at the instance of the Manitoba Sugar Company?


Milton Fowler Gregg: First of all, Mr. Chairman, that amount is not to bring workers to Canada. That is done under immigration arrangements. This amount is to assist workers to move within Canada, from eastern Canada to other parts of Canada. My advisers have not here with them information as to the portion of that amount used for the purpose my hon. friend mentioned, but if he will permit me to do so, I shall be glad to send that information to him by mail.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do the minister's officials happen to have the amounts for persons destined for Manitoba? Most of them would be for the Manitoba Sugar Company.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am sorry to say that we have not that information here, but we can get it and provide it for the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would appreciate that. I just want to make this one comment that occurs to me as a result of what the minister has said. As I made clear previously, my whole concern about this matter is that the Manitoba Sugar Company should accept its responsibility. But it now appears that these people whom the Manitoba Sugar Company wants brought here get assistance through the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to reach Canadian shores, and then they

get assistance through the Department of Labour to get from the port at which they land to a place like Manitoba.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Of course a great many of these people were known as-and this is a term we are trying to get away from-displaced persons from camps in central Europe, and have no means at all by which to get to Canada or to get anywhere in Canada after they arrive here. I should augment what I said about their arrival in Canada. They are earmarked by our member of the immigration team in Europe, before they leave Europe, for work in some portion of Canada, in groups. Consequently, when they arrive at the point of landing we are able to give them assistance in getting to a place where their work is waiting for them. What my hon. friend refers to as happening in Manitoba is happening in all the provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I just want to make it clear that I quite agree with the steps that we are taking in terms of providing a refuge and a new home for these people. I am glad for every humanitarian step that Canada takes along these lines. The point I wish to make is this. In view of the fact that some of these people are being brought here not only because of the humanitarian interest that we as a nation have, but because of the wish of certain private employers who get quite an advantage out of it, I think the private employers concerned should measure up to their responsibilities as well.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I should have added, with respect to those known as displaced persons, that IRO paid their expenses to Canada; but of course we contributed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes; we also contributed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
714. To authorize the Minister of Labour to arrange for a program of rehabilitation for the physically handicapped, including the appointment of an advisory committee, and to provide -for expenditures in connection therewith, $48,000.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: This is the item to which I referred a few moments ago, with respect to the appointment of a committee. The item reads in part: ". . . including the appointment of an advisory committee." I hope the minister will put a big red mark opposite this item on his diary, and, when the committee is appointed, make sure that there is on it a woman representative or women representatives, depending on the size of the committee.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I can reassure my hon. friend on that point.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Post Office
post office department	Mr. Sinclair: Hear, hear.
318. Departmental administration, $951,541.
Hon. Edouard Rinfrel (Postmaster General):: Before we go on with the consideration of the estimates, I should like to refer to an incident that took place yesterday concerning which the hon. member for Greenwood sent me an extremely kind letter. He said that he hoped from the bottom of his heart that I did not really doubt his sincerity. I will say to the hon. member for Greenwood that in the past I have never doubted his sincerity, and I do not do so now. I would appreciate it if he would tell the committee that he does not doubt mine.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I am glad of what the minister has said. I do not doubt his sincerity. I might add that I would hope that what difference there is between us is a matter of opinion and nothing further, and, after all, is always possible of being resolved.


Mr. Hodgson:: I am not going to ask the minister any of the questions that I asked last night. I want him to know, however, that the family which lost the job at Atherley Junction are good reliable people. In these estimates I see an item for the salary of the minister, and for his motorcar allowance. Then I see that the salary of the deputy minister is $12,000, as given at page 327. Then there is the chief executive officer. Is that the assistant deputy minister?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: You might call him that. He is called the chief executive officer.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: His salary is $8,500. Then there is special assistant, Post Office Department, $5,820; director of administration and personnel, $7,625; five regional directors at an average of $6,675.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is correct.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Six postal superintendents, average $4,500; departmental solicitor, $5,520. Is that a full-time solicitor or a part-time solicitor?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: A full-time solicitor.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: He cannot be a very high-class lawyer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is enough.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Executive assistant to the minister, $5,580. That is more money than your solicitor gets. Then there is private secretary to the minister, $5,472; assistant private secretary, $3,108, and so on all the way down. The rest of the items here run from $3,000 to $6,000 or $7,000. But this year, on top of all that, you have a new parliamentary assistant appointed.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: How much salary does he get? I do not see any place for him in these estimates.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is fixed, I understand, by statute, and it comes under legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not by statute; by an item in the estimates.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Is it an item in the estimates?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: It comes under legislation.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Do you not know how much he gets?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: $4,000 a year.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Does he get an indemnity of $4,000 a year on top of that?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is correct.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: And $2,000 tax free?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Yes.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: That means that he gets
$10,000?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is correct.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I do not blame the parliamentary assistant for taking part in the debate and doing some heckling now and then. Anybody would protect his job, if he can, especially when it is a good one.
On page 328, in connection with the same item, I want to ask the minister one question, and I think this will be my last one. There is an item: Films, displays, advertising and other informational publicity, $102,000.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The provision made here for $102,000 covers all publicity and advertising work carried on by the department. The
break-down is:
Advertising-
(1)	General in newspapers, magazines
and by radio designed to encourage greater public use of postal facilities and improved mailing practices	 $ 53,300
(2)	Mail early campaign by means of
newspapers and radio	 16,500
Films (national film board) -
Mail early Christmas trailer	 2,000
Historical film on the making of the postage stamp to commemorate the 100th year since the issue of the first postage
stamp	 18,200
Postal exhibits, displays and floats .... 5,000
Photographic services and prints by
national film board	 2,000
Art works on posters and exhibits	 2,000
Truck signs and incidentals	 3.000

Item agreed to.

Supply-Post Office
Service-
320. Transportation-movement of mail by land, air and water, $36,919,486.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This deals with transportation of mail, and gives me an opportunity to remind the minister that on several occasions I have taken up the case of the men known as the postal couriers who drive the trucks in the city of Winnipeg that pick up the mail from the letter boxes and transport it between stations, to trains and so on. I have pointed out to him and to the house that, contrary to the general opinion that the public has, these trucks are not owned by the government, nor are the men who drive them employees of the Post Office Department. Rather they come under contracts let by the Post Office Department to private contractors who in turn pay the wages received by these men. I have pointed out to him that the wages received by men doing this work in Winnipeg are below the wages for all comparable employment. I made two or three suggestions as to what might be done during this year. Can the Postmaster General say whether he has been able to do anything about it since the matter was last up for discussion?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Yes, I have. We have been reviewing all our city collection contracts. In the latter contracts we have some sort of clause drawn which allows the Postmaster General to raise the amount payable to the contractor in so far as the salaries to the truckers are concerned, to bring them in conformity with the prevailing wage in that particular locality. Unfortunately, in the old contracts we did not have that authority. We have redrafted our contracts and have asked council to give us that authority to bring the rate up to the level of the prevailing rate. At the same time we have also asked council to give us the authority to continue to do that if the prevailing rate goes up.
In the case of Winnipeg I have recommended to council that that be done in the various contracts. I am sorry I cannot give the exact date of the recommendation but I know it is before council now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the Postmaster General indicate the amount of the increase that is being provided for in these contracts?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: The recommendation does not provide for a specific amount. It just mentions the words "prevailing rate" which is to be fixed by the Department of Labour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to hear that something is being done. I am sure it will mean something to the men to get an increase as a result of this action.
We all have had experience with the way in which these prevailing rates are set. There
fMr. Rinfret.]
is a tendency for the information obtained by the Department of Labour to be a bit below what other people know to be the prevailing wages. I hope the minister will see to it that these men are treated properly. If he cannot give me the figures now, I will be able to give him the figures in the fall, and if he has not done what he should have done I am glad to know he is asking for authority to do it in the future. He can look forward to hearing from me if something more needs to be done.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I am quite sure they will be satisfied. While I am on my feet may I be permitted to read into the record an answer to the question that was put to me yesterday by the hon. member for Calgary East? I think the best way to answer his question is by reading into the record a letter I wrote to my colleague and deskmate, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, about conditions in the Renfrew district of Calgary:
My dear colleague:
With the return of the attached telegram addressed to you by the mayor of Calgary in connection with letter carrier delivery service in the Renfrew district of that city, I am informed that the big difficulty in that case was the absence of proper pathways from the street line to the various houses, but we have now received a report from the postmaster to the effect that our requirements have been met and that the service can be given. We will, therefore, submit a recommendation to treasury board for authority to employ one extra man to take into delivery these 300 homes and to relieve the carriers on three adjoining walks where excessive overtime is being performed.
As soon as the approval of treasury board is received, I will further communicate with you.
Since then a recommendation has been made to the civil service commission which has to approve the new job. When the civil service commission approves this additional job it has to be submitted to treasury board and then to council. I admit that it is a long-drawn-out affair but the wheels are in motion, and I hope to be able to send the letter carrier within a short time.


Mr. Harkness:: Can the minister tell me how long it is likely to be before the wheels go full circle?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I inquired this morning about that, and I think it will be much sooner than the hon. gentleman expects.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Just one more question. On page 331 of the details there is an item of boot allowance, $151,200. What is that?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Twice a year we give each of our letter carriers an allowance of $12.85. We supply them with boots.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: On this item I should like to mention something about the tenders of the couriers. I am not going to go into it at

length, because I went into it thoroughly before. A few days ago I received a letter in regard to a contract. It seems that the department is calling for tenders. Instead of allowing the people to tender of their own accord, they think they are not going to get enough tenders in, therefore they send some agent or somebody from an agency to go and see John Brown and Tom Smith and ask them to tender on some mail route on which they think the mail courier is going to ask a little higher rate of pay. I should like to say to the department that it seems to be, well, almost a vile procedure, to ask one man to tender against his neighbour who has had a contract for probably eight or ten years under a nominal price. To keep him on a lower rate they get somebody outside that does not need it to tender. Let me draw this to the attention of the department. They might look into it to see if there is some other way to get people to tender, instead of urging that someone tender against his neighbour.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That will be the case where tenders have been received and considered too high. It is covered by section 69 of the present act, and when the new act is accepted it will be section 26.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I should like to speak to the minister about a man in my constituency whose wife is bedridden from arthritis. This man is a mail courier on a rural route which takes about two or three hours to cover. Because of his wife's condition he has to be at home, but he hesitates to let the job go because he requires the money it will bring in. Indeed, there is very little else he can do. The result is that a neighbour woman stays with his wife while he does the route.
This man believes he is entitled to an increase in pay, but he hesitates to have the job put up for tender through fear that someone else would underbid him. This man is a good workman, he is reliable, and I am sure the postmaster would bear out what I say. Is there any way in which he could obtain a 10 per cent increase? I believe his contract is for about $700 or $800.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: If the hon. member would give me the particulars I would be glad to look into it. If the contract is for less than a thousand dollars, then, under the new act when it is sanctioned, we may have authority to do something.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: I shall write to the minister as soon as I return home.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
112. Departmental administration, $1,505,769.
Supply-Finance
Agar Rodney Adamson: I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant a question concerning the operation of the department in connection with the Dominion Succession Duty Act. I understand it operates in this way: If a married taxpayer in the province of Quebec dies, for purposes of dominion succession duties it is understood that half of his estate belongs to his wife, and that dominion succession duties are therefore levied on half. In the other provinces, however, in the event of the man's death the tax is levied against the whole estate. I understand that this is the method of levying the tax under the Dominion Succession Duty Act. Would the parliaments ary assistant comment in the matter?


Mr. James Sinclair (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Chairman, this is a matter for the Department of National Revenue, since the administration of the Dominion Succession Duty Act comes under that department. Perhaps the Minister of National Revenue could answer.


James Joseph McCann: I must confess I was not paying close attention to the hon. member's question, but from what I understand the hon. member to say I think he is correct. The point is, however, that the other half of the estate becomes taxable when the widow dies. The rate is changed when the estate is cut in half.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The schedule of rates is much lower in Quebec than in the common law provinces.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, before the .item carries I wish to make several remarks. First of all I wish to say to the press gallery people and to the newspapers, as well as to members of the House of Commons, that in speaking now I am not entering upon a filibuster. I should like to make it abundantly clear that in my judgment the most important set of estimates coming before the House of Commons are those of the Minister of Finance.
The Department of Finance is responsible for our housing situation, for the agricultural prices afflicting us from coast to coast, for the cost of living from which we are now suffering, for the profits which are permitted to great corporations in this nation, profits which most people will agree are exorbitant at the present time, for the taxation that afflicts the Dominion of Canada, and for the tariffs that our people across the country suffer from so inequitably.	.	[DOT]
Surely the department which has under its control matters such as these is one which ought not to be considered hastily or lightly in the dying hours of any session of parliament. Yet during the fifteen years of my

Suppl y-Finance
membership in the House of Commons I have found invariably that the estimates of the Minister of Finance are completed as almost the last order of business at the end of the session, when everyone is tired and anxious to get away-and let me add that I am just as tired and anxious to get away as anyone else.
So I hope it will be made clear that the purpose I have in rising to speak upon the matter I am now going to discuss before the House of Commons is a sincere and honest purpose. I do believe that until the people of Canada and members of the House of Commons begin to concentrate upon the Department of Finance they will have very small chance of finding even a semblance of a solution for the difficulties now surrounding them.
I propose to ask five questions, and I shall ask the Minister of Finance, with his experts, to answer these questions. I have sent copies of them to the parliamentary assistant who, by the way, is left to carry the burden alone at this time. For some reason or other, the Minister of Finance is away. I have sent a copy of the questions to each of the experts who sit in front of the parliamentary assistant today. I have also sent a copy to the Prime Minister so that, along with us, he can consider these questions.
I will grant that to answer some of the points asked in the questions will require an expert knowledge and understanding of finance. Consequently I am sure that the parliamentary assistant will have to call quite freely upon the experts in front of him. However, they should be able to answer the questions, and answer them accurately.
Before asking these questions I have one more thing to say, and that is that if they are answered accurately they can be answered in one word. If they are answered with the right word there will be no further remarks from me today. I shall call it a day, and be well pleased with the achievement.
Let me say finally before I put the questions that they go right to the heart of the difficulty confronting the civilized world today.
The first question is this:
1.	A dollar created today by the treasury of Canada without debt or interest, and spent into circulation, much as was each of the $26 million created by the treasury of Canada during world war I, and spent into circulation-such a dollar would be a sound dollar today, provided there were in Canada enough goods for such a dollar to "chase", would it not?
2.	Notwithstanding the Bank of Canada Act and the Bank Act of Canada, it would be feasible for this parliament to pass an act
[Mr. Blackmore.l
similar to the Finance Act of Canada, 1914, or that of 1923, granting the treasury of Canada the power to issue state dollars, without debt or interest, and spend those dollars into circulation, would it not?
3.	Possessing the power conferred by such an act, the treasury of Canada could soundly issue debt-free and interest-free, and scientifically spend into circulation, enough dollars into the hands of Canadian consumers, or potential consumers, so to supplement the dollars the consumers would be obtaining from sources available to them under our present system as to enable Canadian consumers to buy Canadian goods and services to the limit of their desires, or to the limit of Canadian productive capacity, whichever limit might be arrived at first, could it not?
4.	Would it not appear that a logical means of scientifically spending such newly created debt-free dollars into the hands of consumers and potential consumers would be to compensate either manufacturers or retailers for giving a discount in the price consumers would have to pay, thereby in effect counteracting inflationary influences by buying lower prices?
5.	Would it not appear, furthermore, that another logical means of scientifically spending such newly-created dollars into circulation, would be to provide consumers with direct issues of consumer purchasing power resembling cost-of-living bonuses, thereby counteracting deflationary tendencies by, in effect, purchasing markets?
I propose to go back over these questions one by one and give the minister a chance to answer them. If he will answer the question in one word, and it is the right word, I will go on to the next. If he does not answer with the right word I shall probably have to reason with him.
1. A dollar created today by the treasury of Canada without debt or interest and spent into circulation, much as was each of the $26 million created by the treasury of Canada during world war I and spent into circulation -such a dollar would be a sound dollar today provided there were in Canada enough goods for such a dollar to chase, would it not? What would the minister's answer be to that?


James Sinclair: First of all, I certainly do not intend to say, "Yes" or "No". The hon. member can resume his seat because I will take a few minutes. The hon. member started off, as he started off when we were considering the finance estimates last year, by referring to the fact that the Department of Finance is the most important of all government departments. Naturally I agree with that. Secondly, he commented on the fact

that we bring on our estimates so late in the session that he and others who are interested in the financial policies of this country have little opportunity to debate financial matters.
I would remind the hon. member that there is no department of government which is brought before the house so often as the Department of Finance. The speech from the throne mentions many things, but its core is always the financial proposals being made for the year. That is followed by the debate on the speech from the throne. I notice that few members of parliament choose to use the throne debate as an opening gun in a debate on financial policy.
Then later there follows the motion to go into committee of ways and means, although actually the next step is the tabling of estimates. There are repeated motions on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of almost every week when we try to get into committee of supply. Again a financial motion would open up a complete financial debate if a member chose to move it. The fact that no hon. member chose to do so is of course his own choice.
As I remember, it is six weeks since my minister first attempted to introduce the Department of Finance estimates. They were not reached because hon. members chose to speak about everything else except finance, as is their right. But possessing that right they should not then rebuke us for bringing our estimates down at what they say is such a late date.
There have been fifteen financial bills brought before this house this session. I Know that is the number because I have a summary here. The minister was good enough to entrust me with piloting almost all those bills through the house. Let us look over the list. We had amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act and to the Veterans Land Act. Under those acts our department guarantees bank loans. Then there was the amendment to the Quebec Savings Banks Act which opened up the whole field of banking on second reading.
Then there were the three major tax bills, the income tax bill, the excise tax bill, the customs tariff bill, which were debated at long length, especially by members of the Social Credit party who are understandably extremely interested in financial policies. We had a refunding bill covering $200 million which came before the house and which went through in not more than three minutes. That was followed by a bill for over $200 million for financing and guaranteeing Canadian National Railways securities.
Then we had the bill in connection with municipal aid and the amendment to the
Supply-Finance
Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. There was also the consumer credit bill. There certainly have been plenty of opportunities this session for anyone who wanted to debate financial matters. The Minister of Finance on every public occasion, in both public addresses and speeches over the radio, as well as in the House of Commons, has indicated his willingness to engage in a debate on financial policies when his estimates were opened. Almost a month ago we were two or three hours on the opening item, during which time the hon. member asked the minister pretty well the same series of questions, which the minister answered. After all, the minister is the man in charge of policy as far as the Department of Finance is concerned.
I do not think it would be expected' at this dying hour of the session that either the minister or his parliamentary assistant should introduce new phases of financial policy. The opposition would not expect it, and as a matter of fact would resent it, and rightly so. As far as these questions are concerned, I appreciate the courtesy of the hon. member in sending me copies. I may tell him that I did him the courtesy of reading his speech very carefully today while I was waiting for the finance estimates to come on. I find that I did try to answer according to my views, which are similar to those held by the minister, these very questions during the same debate last year. His first question, which I take now because it comes first, was whether the creation of a dollar by the Bank of Canada and spent into circulation would be a sound dollar.


John Horne Blackmore: May I draw the attention of the parliamentary assistant to the fact that that is not what this question asks. This question asks whether or not a dollar created independently of the Bank of Canada by the treasury of Canada would be a sound dollar.


James Sinclair: All right, by the treasury of Canada. Almost a year ago, when I was putting a bill through the house, I think it was the excise bill, there was one item which was going to raise another $18 million. At that time the hon. member asked me exactly the same question, whether or not it would have been just as easy for the treasury to have created that $18 million, and whether that would have caused' a ripple on the economic waters of Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: I am sure the minister and I should be at one on this matter. The question I asked on that occasion was whether or not that money could be taken from the Bank of Canada, in which case it would be debt money but much cheaper. The question I am asking now is whether or not satisfactory

Supply-Finance
dollars could be created debt-free, just as was done in the case of the $26 million in world war I?


James Sinclair: I do not intend to answer any of these questions. Questions were asked of the minister two or three weeks ago and he answered them from his viewpoint. The same question was asked, whether it would cause a ripple. It is quite true that with the great volume of money in circulation it might not cause a ripple, but the moment the people of Canada and the people of other countries felt that we were printing money then there would be a very grave ripple, a very great loss of confidence.
I do not want to be rude to the hon. gentleman but I certainly do not think that in the final passage of the details of administration of the Department of Finance he should ask questions which have been raised at almost every session since I have been here and put to different ministers of finance. Similar questions have been raised already this session and were answered by the Minister of Finance.
We are having a fall session when the hon. member will have an opportunity to launch a debate on the speech from the throne or on the budget, if we have a budget. What we are certainly going to have is a large financial bill during the consideration of which he could open his debate on policy. There will be ample opportunity for him to seek any replies he wants from the minister or the government.


Mr. Low:: I wonder if the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance would undertake on behalf of his minister that when we launch a debate on the fundamental financial policy of this country they will engage in that debate and not let it be a Dutch battle. The trouble thus far has been that there has been too little disposition on the part of the finance ministry to come out and engage in debate. There has been altogether too much tendency and inclination to shrug off these questions or to give an entirely inadequate answer. All during the time I have been in this house, since 1945, we have never been able on a single occasion to get a debate where mind meets mind, and where we engage in real honest to goodness debate. The parliamentary assistant quite rightly says that if we want to launch a debate on financial policy we have ample opportunity to do so.
I would ask him to go back and look over all the speeches members of this group have made on the speech from the throne, on the budget, and in fact on every conceivable opportunity where it is possible to raise financial issues, and he will see we have launched
[Mr. Blackmore.l
debates but we have not had any discussion. That is the trouble. A person cannot debate by himself any more than one bird can flock by itself. The minister knows that, and the whole problem is, when are we going to engage in something like a debate on this matter? That is all. The parliamentary assistant says that we have had something like fifteen opportunities this session-


James Sinclair: Fifteen bills alone.


Solon Earl Low: Fifteen bills on which to launch a debate on financial policy. My hon. friend knows, when he says so, that the minute any member of this group attempted to introduce a debate on financial policy we would hear the chairman, and quite rightly, asking us to get back on the beam and to get in order because it would be out of order to debate general financial policy on these bills. The parliamentary assistant knows that. Therefore we have to discount about 95 per cent of the statement he made that we had fifteen opportunities to launch a debate. That is not true.
I am not going to hold up the house this afternoon because I have already made my position clear to the Minister of Finance. I made it clear the other night that I would give him one more opportunity. I do not know what the hon. member for Lethbridge intends to do about it. That is up to him, but I think I made it perfectly clear the other night that when the bill that is now before the house, having had first reading, is brought before us again this fall, it is my intention to launch a debate on fundamental financial policy. I think I served notice the other night on the minister that at that time we would expect him to engage us in debate, not just to try to shrug it off, not to say that this is not the time, not to give us halfhearted or inadequate answers, but to come right out and meet us head-on.
I want to make it clear that the reason I served that notice on the minister is twofold. First, we have not been able to get him to meet us head-on in debate yet on fundamental financial policy. Second, I think it is time that the minister either acknowledge that our contentions are correct or, in the alternative, stand up in this forum of the people and prove that we are wrong. It is one or the other. I do not want to go on indefinitely with people taking the position that simply because the Minister of Finance has not made a definite pronouncement on these things there is suspicion of the proposals that are put forward by the Social Credit group. I should like either to be proved wrong, in which case I would certainly acknowledge that I was wrong and would try something else, or to be able to prove that the Minister

of Finance has been wrong all these years in not having carried forward the proposals that we have placed before the house so often, the financial policy which I still believe is sound, and not only sound but absolutely essential if this country is ever to realize its potential.
That is all I want to say this afternoon. I will merely close with this statement: Surely it is no more than we can rightfully expect that the minister will agree, when the bill is before us in the fall, to enter into a real debate on fundamental financial policy. I should like to have the hon. member for Greenwood enter into that debate. I am sure he would, and let us make it a good one. If the Co-Operative Commonwealth Federation members who sit to my right should demand a debate on the question of government ownership of the means of production they would have a debate on their hands, right away. I say that we are just as entitled to recognition of our contentions as any group in the house. All we are asking is that people do not shrug this question off but engage in a real debate, get down to the fundamentals, and when we have finished either they will be able to say truthfully: "We have answered your questions, we met you on fair ground and we believe we vanquished you," or, in the alternative, "You have vanquished us."


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary assistant made the kind of speech that I expected he would. He just covered the whole matter with red herrings so as to take attention off the questions that were asked. The only approach to this question which was asked the minister the other night was this question: Was one of the dollars of the $26 million created by the finance department of Canada between 1914 and 1917 under the Finance Act of 1914, and spent into circulation, sound? The minister knew perfectly well that he could not say "no" because the dollar was created under the Finance Act of 1914. And he did not like to say "yes".
He hesitated like the girl who could not make up her mind whether or not to accept a suitor. Finally he said it "probably" was sound, which was sidestepping the whole issue. Sidestepping that vital point is just not good enough for a nation suffering excruciating misery because of the faulty financial policy under which it is being governed. It is just simply not enough. The hon. member for Peace River says that this group has a right to have its questions answered. The people of Canada also have a right to have those questions answered.
The first question I ask is very simple. It is easy to say whether the answer is yes or no. The question was with reference to
Supply-Finance
a dollar created today by the treasury of Canada without debt or interest, and spent into circulation, much as was each of the $26 million created by the treasury of Canada during world war I, and spent into circulation. It is not money to be taken out of the Bank of Canada, mark you; it would be created by the treasury just as the $26 million were. Such a dollar would be a sound dollar today, provided there were in Canada enough goods for such a dollar to "chase", would it not?
I believe it was pretty well agreed by the minister on the night of the 20th of June that what caused real inflation was having too many dollars chasing too few goods. Later on I said that I reasoned this way, that if you have too many goods being "chased" by too few dollars you would have a depression. That is what occurred in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933. Now, if you have just the right amount of dollars "chasing" the right amount of goods, you should have neither a depression nor an inflation. What is asked for in this question No. 1 is simply this: If there were enough goods for the created dollar to chase, would that created dollar be sound? The answer is either yes or no, whether the dollar was backed by gold or by securities or backed only by the credit of the Dominion of Canada.
Now, the answer is "yes", Mr. Chairman, the answer to question No. 1 is "yes". I defy the minister and all his experts to prove that it is not.


Mr. Riley:: Give him time.


John Horne Blackmore: We shall give him time.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Three months.


John Horne Blackmore: Then, in three months we shall have the same difficulty all over again. Now is the time, now is the hour to answer! The answer to question No. 1 is yes. The minister cannot say anything to gainsay what I have said. I am not going to take the trouble here to prove it; I have proven it already in the speeches I have given. There was one on May 1, on Canadian financial policy, reviewing what was done in world war I, and what was done in 1932 under the Finance Act of 1923. Then there was the talk that I gave on the greenbacks, and the one I gave on June 20 on the Bradbury notes issued in Great Britain. All those illustrations indicated quite clearly that a one-dollar bill created by the treasury, independent of the banks, would be sound if there were enough goods in this country to justify putting that dollar into circulation.
If there is anyone in the committee who wishes to challenge that remark, let him do it. Otherwise, I am going to assume it is proven, right in the presence of the great

Supply-Finance
Bank of Canada experts and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance.
I do not suppose the minister would want to answer the second question, but let us go over it again. Notwithstanding the Bank of Canada Act and the Bank Act of Canada, it would be feasible for this parliament to pass an act similar to the Finance Act of 1914, under which $26 million were created and spent in world war I by the treasury of Canada without the banks having anything to do with the creation whatever, the passage of such act having the effect of granting the treasury of Canada the power to issue state dollars now, without debt or interest, and spend those dollars into circulation, would it not?
If the minister can say "no" to that, I am ready to give him a chance to say so. What is being asked for in that question is clear. Before the Bank of Canada was created in this country, the treasury of the Dominion of Canada had the authority and the power to create money and spend it if they chose. What we want to know is whether or not the Bank of Canada was a device for stealing away from the treasury of Canada that power to create money and spend it. Was it a means of putting that power inside an enclosure and locking it up so that no naughty government could get at it? That is what we want to know. The next thing we want to know is whether the parliament of Canada and the government of Canada has the courage, in the face of the Bank of Canada Act, to pass in 1951 or 1952 a finance act like that of 1914, giving the treasury of Canada the authority to print debt-free dollars just as it had the authority under the finance acts of 1914 and 1923.
Now, that is just as clear as ABC. No question like that has been asked during the time I have been here. I have not asked any such questions. I have been working since April 19 this year right up to the very point we are standing at today, so that I could ask these questions. The evidence is all on Hansard concerning each answer.
On April 19 I told the Minister of Finance that I would expect him to be able to answer these questions. There is no difficulty in saying yes. Has this government of Canada today the right to pass a finance act of 1914? Has it the power? Does it dare to use the power? I would say that if all that has been said about the independence of the government from the Bank of Canada is true, the government certainly has the power, and it ought to have the courage to use the power. If it passes a finance act in 1951 like the finance act of 1914, then this government of Canada will have the unquestionable authority to print the money independent of the banks, and use it for any purpose it chooses. It could
[Mr. Blackmore.l
use it for paying for any services which the government needs, granted an adequate supply of goods is on Canadian markets. If the minister has any argument against that position, now is the time to make it.
Just a few moments ago the parliamentary assistant said that if we started printing money in Canada a lot of other countries would begin to worry about it. I should like to know how serious that is. Have we reached the point now where this nation has not got the authority and the freedom to do what it couldi do in 1914? Have we reached the point where we would not dare pass a finance act like that of 1923, and use it? If the answer is yes, let us just find out why and set about rectifying the situation. If this nation is not as free in 1951 as it was in 1914, it is time everybody knew about it. Judging from the fact the minister makes no comment, I shall assume that the case is established' in respect of question 2. The answer is unchallengeably yes.
With regard to 
question No. 3-incidentally I sent a copy of these questions to the member for Greenwood.


An hon. Member:: You answer them.


John Horne Blackmore: I shall send a copy of them to anyone else who wants one. I shall say a word or two now illustrative of the significance of this question. We have listened to several debates about housing in this country. The last time we heard about housing we were told that we could not get the money, and the interest rate was very high. If we could use the finance act of 1914 or 1923, modernized for 1951, look at the difference it would make to the matter of housing in this country granted we have ample production. The same would be true throughout the whole round of our national interests, as finance affects them.
I assume that everyone in the committee is ready to grant that the answer to question No. 2 is "yes". That is right-the answer to question 2 is "yes".


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Why don't you get Alberta to print a few?


John Horne Blackmore: The trouble is that Alberta has not got the authority to create money, under the constitution, because the British North America Act places all matters pertaining to banking, currency, the creation of currency and coinage, in the hands of the dominion government. Someone says it is a blessing. It is also a calamity to have that power in the dominion's hands if the government of Canada is not going to use it.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Why not introduce a bill?


John Horne Blackmore: Let us establish the principles first. What is the use of introducing a bill until one establishes the principle?


Daniel Aloysius Riley: You could amend the British North America Act.


John Horne Blackmore: We do not want to amend the British North America Act. The province of Alberta first of air tried by several different acts-when the Social Credit government first went in under Premier Aberhart-to get control of the province's credit. I could enumerate those acts, but I do not propose to do so; but if there is any desire that I should, I will do it. Every last single one of those acts was either disallowed or declared to be ultra vires.


An hon. Member:: Good work.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, good work for the people who seek to destroy the freedom of man but very bad work for the people who want to be free; good work for the men who want to take away from Canada the power it possessed in 1914, 1923 and 1933, but bad work for the people who want to retain that freedom.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Now let us have No. 3.


John Horne Blackmore: No. 3, yes. I should first say with respect to Alberta that we came here and asked for a bank. We had a promise from Hon. C. A. Dunning, right from where the minister sits now. We had a promise, so nearly implied that it was almost a contract, that he would give us a bank. We came back the next year to get a bank; and the number of sordid devices and tricks that were resorted to in order to keep us from getting a bank would make a long story.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: That language is not parliamentary.


John Horne Blackmore: I know whereof I speak, because I piloted the bank bill right through the committee.


Daniel Aloysius Riley: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, may I say that I do not think the language of the hon. member for Lethbridge is parliamentary.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to argue with the hon. gentleman about parliamentary language. If there is anything in my words that offended him, I withdraw them; but he will know what I mean just the same.
Finally, do you know what they resorted to in connection with the bank of Alberta? Do you know the reason they gave why they could not let Alberta have that power? They said the dominion government had not the constitutional power to grant to Alberta power that was given to the dominion government under the constitution.


An hon. Member:: What item are we on?


Solon Earl Low: No. 1.
Supply-Finance


John Horne Blackmore: We are on the estimates of the Department of Finance, item No. 1, under which we can review the whole financial policy. I maintain that the financial policy of this country is gravely at fault, and that the cause of all our troubles is a faulty financial system.
Question No. 3 is this:
Possessing the power conferred by such an act as the Finance Act of 1914, the treasury of Canada could soundly issue debt free and interest free, and scientifically spend into circulation, enough dollars into the hands of Canadian consumers, or potential consumers, so to supplement the dollars the consumers would be obtaining from sources available to them under our present system as to enable Canadian consumers to buy Canadian goods and services to the limit of their desires, or to the limit of Canadian productive capacity, whichever limit might be arrived at first, could it not?
Will the minister undertake to say that the answer to that question is no?


An hon. Member:: Silence.


John Horne Blackmore: All right. The answer to question No. 3 must be "yes".
A year ago we were all worrying about a depression, and we were asking ourselves what on earth we would do if the amount of goods this country was producing became so great that the people could not buy those goods. The result would be that prices would fall, factories would go on part-time production, men would be laid off and we would be heading straight down into a depression. Is that not exactly what was in the mind of every member sitting in this chamber? If there is a man who will say that it was not in his mind, let us hear him talk.
What was the matter all during the long period of depression? What was the answer given?


Solon Earl Low: Money.


John Horne Blackmore: They said: "We have overproduction." Why did our government in those days not create money to enable our people to buy that production? They could soundly have done it. Why did they not do it? If we again get on the skids leading down into a depression, what are we going to do to stop it? Is it not reasonable to say that this government should be able to create enough money and put it into the hands of our people to "chase" the many goods bringing on the depression? To enable them to buy those goods? If that cannot be done, is there anything under the sun that can be done? And the answer to this query must be no.



S014 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Finance
Then are we to say that this government in Canada-in this majestic nation so packed with productive capacity-cannot do anything about overproduction?-are we to say that they cannot increase consumption by creating money and putting it into the hands of the people, when the thing that fundamentally makes money sound is goods and services? If we were to pass in 1951, in the fall session, a finance act similar to the finance act in 1914, and then we were to find that we had more goods in this country than we could) with our then purchasing power consume, we could start creating debt-free money enough to match our overproduction and put it into the hands of the people in the form even of old age pensions, or a dozen other forms. Can the minister give any reason why he should answer question No. 3 by no? Can his experts give any reason why they should answer it no? I hear no reply. Then the answer to question 3 unquestionably is "yes".
Question No. 4 is this:
Would it not appear that a logical means of scientifically spending such newly created) debt-free dollars into the hands of consumers and potential consumers would be to compensate either manufacturers or retailers for giving a discount in the price consumers would have to pay, thereby in effect counteracting inflationary influences by buying lower prices?
Is there any reason why the answer to that question should be no? I am waiting for an answer in the presence of about fifty witnesses. I hear no answer. Then there is no reason why the answer should be no. In other words we could commence right now, Mr. Chairman. If we had an act of that sort on the statute books of Canada, and if the finance department would use that act, we could if our supply of goods is adequate commence right now bringing down prices in this country, by paying a part of the retail price of the goods; and we would pay that price with dollars created by this treasury under the new finance act, and those dollars would all be sound because there would be sufficient goods to keep them sound.
By judiciously using the power which would be given to the treasury under a finance act like that of 1914, passed in 1951, this government would be enabled to attack the high prices now prevailing and progressively to bring them down to a reasonable level. The government could attack any new increase like the increase in connection with wood pulp and could say: No, we do not want that increase in price; that would increase costs all across the board. We will subsidize you where you have got to have some money, and we will subsidize you with this money we will create under this new finance act.
[Mr. Blackmore.l
Can anyone see any reason why that should not be done, provided there are enough goods in the country? If the minister can see any reason why the answer to question No. 4 should be no, let us hear it.
I am maintaining that the answer to question No. 4 should be "yes"; and further that some such procedure as I have just indicated constitutes the only possible harmless means of attacking the so-called inflation of today. If anyone in this chamber or anywhere else can see any other way, let him please come forward and give it.
What is the present government apparently trying to do about inflation, or what they call inflation, the present high prices?
Apparently they are trying to get the inventories in possession of the various manufacturers concerned all across the country so great that there will be heavy price cuts, and we shall have what will bring on a depression, unemployment and all that kind of thing, to the point that we shall have great numbers of people unemployed. Is that what we are working for?
In the course of the slashing of prices, bringing them down, there will be vast losses to the people producing in the country. Is that what we are working for? That is apparently the only device the Department of Finance in Canada is endeavouring to use to combat the so-called inflation today. I think the hon. member for Greenwood would agree with me that that is the case. I believe that the parliamentary assistant to the minister would have to agree that that is the case, and the Prime Minister, to whom. I sent a set of these questions, will have to agree that that is the case. It sounds pretty ugly, does it not?
We shall take great numbers of manufacturing concerns all over this country who have had their costs increased by the faulty policies employed by this government since 1946. We shall take these men with their high costs and force them to sell at a loss all over this nation, with loss following loss as heavy as those in the great depression. Is there anyone who is prepared to question that statement? Would it not be far sounder to ease ourselves down by a monetary device until we bring the price structure down to something like what it ought to be?
So we shall agree the answer to question No. 4 is "yes". And the top ranking experts of the Bank of Canada cannot find any reason why it should not be yes. The minister would not dare say yes if he could, although he has been a very progressive young man, and is today.
If you could take these same fine young men such as the parliamentary assistant to the

minister and the minister himself, who are two of the most brilliant young men in Canada today, two of the most capable; if you were to put these two young men in charge of a financial system, where they would be operating in accordance with reality, concerning themselves about the welfare of the country rather than about the welfare of the banks, of the mortgage companies and a whole lot of other financial people, concerning themselves about using Canada's resources rather than blocking production and generally upsetting the whole economy; if you could take two such young men and then put into their hands a real financial system, one that was genuinely realistic, they would produce results which would delight everybody in the Dominion of Canada inside of five years.
Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, I know you would like to carry it. Just let the prices keep rising and rising and rising, as they are doing now! Wood pulp went up the other day, and there is an agitation to bring the price of telephones up, the cost of railroad freight rates up, and the wages of the textile workers up, everything going up, forcing the cost of production up, so that when things come down there will be a disastrous loss on everybody's part, with demoralization of the whole economy.
Let no one try to smile that off because that is exactly what happened in the great depression. It is exactly what happened in the United States, and the same thing happened in Canada. We said we could not help it because the United States went down. Well, we can help it if we take realistic measures in respect of finance.
Now, take No. 5. If we can answer No. 5 with "yes", then I do not need to talk at all. If the minister will say that the answer to No. 5 is yes, I will not have to reason with him. No. 5 reads as follows:
Would it not appear, furthermore, that another logical means of scientifically spending such newly-created dollars into circulation would be to provide consumers with direct issues of consumer purchasing power resembling cost of living bonuses, thereby counteracting deflationary tendencies by. in effect, purchasing markets?
Old age pensions, family allowances, and all that kind of thing, increasing pensions for the blind, for the incurables-we can produce all the goods to supply them with the needs of life-food, clothing, shelter, services- vast amounts of them. Why should not we be able to use financial means to help to distribute these good things, rather than prevent the things from being used, or leave them unproduced? Is there anyone who has anything to say against what I am saying now?
Supply-Finance


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Horne Blackmore: If there is I will do a little more reasoning.
This is the first time, Mr. Chairman, since I have been in the house that we have had a chance to have a real showdown on this financial question. The minister will not answer question 5. But if the minister had answered and answered truthfully, his answer to every single one of these five questions would have been "yes", and I will challenge any man in Canada to prove the opposite- I do not care who he is.
Now, what I am talking about, Mr. Chairman, simply and briefly is this. These questions that I have asked are fundamentally the social credit idea.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


John Horne Blackmore: If the minister agrees and says the answer to these questions is yes, then he agrees that the fundamental techniques of social credit are absolutely sound.
I do not propose to detain the committee any further. I thank the committee for having listened to me. And I warn the government that it cannot afford to attempt to shrug this matter off. We are right up against realities today. If we do not make the right kind of changes in our financial policy there will be plenty of cause for regret in the heart of every person in Canada. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again I thank the committee.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: There was a time when I had proposed to deliver myself at some length on this item, but as the days have gone by I have jettisoned more and more of my speech until very little of it is left, and I think if it were an hour or so later it might have all disappeared. But there are one or two things that I should like to say, and I think they can be said in a very few minutes, although one might well desire a more enthusiastic audience. Nevertheless I will proceed.
I just want to put on record this simple fact which perhaps may have escaped the notice of most of the people of Canada. Within the last six months the government, and in particular the Department of Finance, has in fact ditched the whole of the policy which they have been following for years, in spite of repeated urgings that they should not do so. Of course I would not expect anyone to take my word for it, because it is conceivable that it might be prejudiced, and therefore I wish to quote a little from a pamphlet I have here reprinted from the editorial pages of the Winnipeg Free Press and marked "Inflation II". I would not take
5016

Supply-Finance
the time to deal with it in the very few minutes that I shall speak if it were not for the fact that I think the people of Canada have suffered a good deal, and perhaps are going to suffer some more from what I may call, using a phrase which has become quite familiar, namely, "the economic consequences of Mr. Abbott." I want to read from page 11 of this pamphlet under the subheading "A government on trial."
The government of Canada is now engaged not only in a gigantic deflationary fiscal operation but in a political adventure which should test its strength and quality to the limit before the year is out.
As explained in previous dispatches, the government undertook a few weeks ago to grapple with the problem of inflation by drastic fiscal measures. Understandably it said little about this decision, the largest it has made in the economic field since the war.
I would like to digress a moment and say that somehow we in the opposition do not seem very successful in getting across to the people of Canada some things which we think are important. I do not think I have the gift of interesting the press to the extent that one would like to do in the things that of course one feels are important merely because one has said them oneself; but at any rate I believe that this statement which I have already read, and which I think is a sample, if it could be put to the ordinary citizens of Canada, would give them quite a surprise. Let me continue:
In the first place it did not know-
That is, the government did not know.
-and does not know yet, whether its measures will work. In the second place, these measures are bound to hurt a lot of people temporarily and no government likes to break bad news to an electorate.
If it were not for the fact that I have jettisoned most of this speech, I would have liked to take time to point out some of the things which are not now quite as lovely in the garden as they have been in the past. I think it was the Minister of Finance a year or two ago-1949 I believe it was-who said, "I know of no country in the world that has a better record." Well, that covered a lot of territory. I am glad to know that the minister, or whoever said it-and I have said that I think it was the Minister of Finance-was as pleased as he was.
I wish to go on quoting briefly from this same source. I would ask hon. members to note the clear words used to designate the policy which is followed, and which we have tried year after year after year to get the government to abandon. I am not suggesting that we have any special wisdom; but there were a great many people who had the same feeling. There were a great many people who did not believe that it was possible to control

men's minds, people who believed that in the long run the decisions of the business community and of what we might call the marketplace would one day become effective, as they have become effective. They were troubled about these measures which came so largely from the classroom and from government departments.
Let me read again from this source, which I hope I can at least call independent, or at least is certainly not inclined to our views. It says:
The Canadian government's policy of vigorous monetary deflation . . . raises a question complex in detail, simple in substance.
Mr. Chairman, I ask particularly that attention be given to the words I shall read now:
It is whether a democratic society, having followed a distorted Keynesian policy of inflation for a long period, with "cyclical" budgets and other methods of expanding the public's purchasing power can suddenly throw the gears into reverse before the economic machine goes into the ditch That question faces us starkly in Canada today and we need not think that it will be answered without pain.
I would like to digress to remind the committee how often we have urged-I repeat how often we have urged-that these pains would arise and that this policy of expanding purchasing power which has gone on and on, and on and on, by various devices we all remember, would have serious results. I remember years ago we tried to get the government to slow up on the policy of double depreciation. That was a most stimulating expedient to increase production at a time when, as we all remember, it was already high.
These things went on. Now we are in reverse. It reminds me of the mythical character, I believe called Procrustes, who had a bed into which he fitted everybody. If you were too long he cut off a bit so that he could fit you in; if you were too short he lengthened you so that you fitted the bed.
That is what we have been doing. First of all we had double depreciation to lengthen people out and then since that time we have had deferred depreciation to shorten them up.
I shall go back to quote from the Free Press -because I think it is good:
It is true also-
And it is only fair to say that the government has of course told us that this comes from outside; it comes from heaven; it comes from Providence; it comes from the United States. But whatever is wrong, do not blame the government for it. They say, blame somebody else. The Free Press has something to say about that. It says:
It is true also that Canada cannot answer it alone.

I have never argued that it could answer it alone. We have argued there were glad periods when we have told the world the way we were living. I continue the quotation:
As an integral part of the North American economy, Canada is subject daily and hourly to the fluctuations of prices and other economic factors in the United States and, indeed, throughout the world.
That is true. We must not blame the government for everything.
Nevertheless, within its powers the Canadian government at last-and very late-is beginning a fundamental attack on inflation. Since high prices are not themselves the cause but only the effect of inflation-of a money supply in excess of goods to satisfy it-the government wisely is not attempting the futile task of price control. It is trying by drastic monetary means to reduce the money supply while, at the same time, expanding the supply of goods.
That is sound, in principle. The question is when you apply it. Now I come back for a moment to refer to the expression "throwing the gears into reverse". We have tried to suggest remedies time and time again, and there have been appeals to deal with it in that way. As this writer says, we are now throwing the gears into reverse, and inevitably causing distresses which might have been avoided.
We have of course the 59-cent dollar. I need not mention that. We have Canadian bond prices which have been allowed to seek something near their natural level, and which have caused distress to hundreds of thousands of people.
Now, what has happened is that the government has been on a kind of currency drunk. It is now sobering up, but the trouble is that the sobering-up process affects other people besides the government.
I said at the outset that I was not going to speak long. I think it has been worth while to put on the record this statement from a reputable source indicating that it agrees with what I have said. I wish to make it clear that there are things which are bothering the people, and which are not things of yesterday or today. Three years ago we argued with the government that prices had gone up twenty points from 1942 to 1948. These are not things that have developed yesterday or today. We argued the sales tax and pointed out to them that many of the taxpayers who have bought bonds have seen them go down, as they have gone down.
I said at the outset that I would be brief, and I think I have been brief.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask a question having to do with the operation of the
Supply-Finance
Canadian Farm Loan Act. As the parliamentary assistant just pointed out, there is no separate item for the farm loan board this year because, as I am glad to learn, it made a profit last year and there is no need for an item. However, this matter comes under the Department of Finance.
My question is directed towards finding out whether the Department of Finance will consider making an amendment either in legislation or in the regulations so that no longer will we require the security of a complete farm unit before making a loan.
I should like to give a simple illustration of the point I have just made. The condition I shall describe causes a hardship to those who would like to obtain some assistance under the act. A farmer who has settled on the land under the Veterans Land Act and has taken assistance under that act has to give a mortgage to the director under the Veterans Land Act. That mortgage covers the whole unit upon which he has been settled. In the case I have in mind, the farm is worth a good deal more than the $6,000 advanced under the Veterans Land Act. The mortgage covers only the part of the farm which contains the farm buildings. There is security for an advance over and above that, on this $6,000 maximum under the Veterans Land Act. Then he turns to the farm loan board, but he finds that because the Veterans Land Act mortgage covers the farm unit, the home place, and the farm loan board requires similar coverage, that although the total or the whole of the farm is security for a good deal more than the $6,000, nevertheless because of the regulations he cannot secure a loan under the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
I should like to ask the parliamentary assistant if he will bring to the attention of the minister and the farm loan board administration the desirability of some amendment so as to permit the making of loans when there is adequate security. I am not suggesting that it be done where there is not adequate security, but where there is adequate security in the value of the land could not a loan be made even though the home buildings are covered by a prior advance?


James Sinclair: Section 7(c) of the Canadian Farm Loan Act specifies that a loan can be made only on a farm unit as such. It also says that the farm cannot be otherwise encumbered. The Canadian Farm Loan Act does provide for second mortgages if the farm loan board has the first mortgage. In the case referred to by the hon. member it was much to the settler's interest to have a veteran's land loan because of the much more generous terms. The stand taken by the farm lean board is that taken also by ordinary lending

Supply-Finance
companies, that they will not lend on land already encumbered. As a rule those who have a Veterans Land Act loan would not turn to the farm loan board for help. However, the board will review the situation.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What I have in mind is that loans under the Veterans Land Act can be restricted to only one part of the farm, leaving another part even without buildings to be security for what would then be a first mortgage under the farm land board act. At the present time the requirement under both acts is that the loan shall cover the buildings and there does not seem to be room for any adjustment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of various acts and costs of special functions-
114. Superannuation and retirement acts, administration, $176,603.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: My recollection is that $75 million was put into the superannuation fund last year.


James Sinclair: That is correct.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: At that time the explanation was given that that was so to speak a payment on account of arrears; in other words, that the fund was not actuarially sound. Could the parliamentary assistant give us the present position?


James Sinclair: When the minister discussed this matter in the house when he introduced the $75 million he said he had asked the actuarial branch to make a full investigation into the position of the government superannuation fund. The report on that matter has been prepared and the minister hopes to table it at the beginning of the fall session. It is a very detailed and technical report because there are so many peculiar features in the government superannuation fund.
As long ago as 1933 when the government of the day had an investigation made the fund was $53 million below what an actuary would require as an adequate fund. Since that time two things have happened. There have been a great number of new entries which have been given credit for previous service and which have paid their contributions, but the government had not matched those contributions.
The second thing which has had a great effect is the sharp rise in salaries in the last ten years. The present government superannuation fund is based on the average salary for the last ten years. We have a situation now where the great bulk of civil servants who have been some years in the service were on a low salary scale and were therefore making small contributions. During the

last few years of their service their salaries have gone up and they are going to be paid pensions on a markedly increased scale.
That is the reason for the lengthy and detailed study by the chief actuary of our insurance branch. It was as a bookkeeping entry that we made this payment of $75 million into the fund. The minister told me that it was his intention to table this report in the fall at which time it would be appropriate to have a discussion of this matter.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does that report show a total which could be given now?


James Sinclair: I do not know whether it would be proper for me to give it before the report is tabled, but it is here.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is it to be
the policy to go on from year to year meeting deficits? Perhaps that is another question which the parliamentary assistant does not feel he can answer and I shall not press it.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: 
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I understand that this report will perhaps be tabled by October?


James Sinclair: That is what the minister said he hoped to do.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I take it that we will be able to discuss this matter some time or other?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It may be that the government will wish to have the additional periods shown before tabling the 1947 report. I found it difficult to get any clear conception of what was happening merely by comparing the report of 1933 with the report of 1947. I did feel that if I had 1948, 1949 and 1950 that would probably throw some light upon what was happening and what was apt to happen in the future.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
116. Administration of the Farmers Creditors Arrangement Act, 1943, and the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, 1938, $19,582.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have read the last report concerning the Farmers Creditors Arrangement Act, and the operations have really come down now to almost nothing. Would the parliamentary assistant say a word about the organization? Is it an organization which is carried in another office, or is it an organization on its own?


James Sinclair: We closed the Alberta office and we are going to close the Saskatchewan office some time this summer or fall. The local office in Ottawa will be able to handle the few accounts still outstanding.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I take it the local office does other things as well?


James Sinclair: Oh, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
118. Foreign Exchange Control Act, 1946-administrative costs (other than those provided by the Bank of Canada), $140,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the parliamentary assistant give us a word about 80709-319
Supply-Finance
this item? I presume that the changes made a year ago are gradually lessening the work. Perhaps we might be given an idea of the numbers engaged. That would be as illustrative as anything else, if the parliamentary assistant has those figures.


James Sinclair: The actual detailed work of course was greatly cut by the relaxation of foreign exchange controls announced last year. A great deal of the actual paper work of course was done by the banks. The staff is supplied by the Bank of Canada. I can give the hon. member the estimates by objects of expenditure if he would like that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


James Sinclair: 1951-52, enforcement expenses, $7,500-it is on page 166 of the details of the estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
122. Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation- adjustment payments in respect of subsidies previously paid, and costs of administration, $75,000.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: What does this board do now?


James Sinclair: Of course the corporation's job is ended. Last year we had a vote of $500,000 because there were quite a few cases still in dispute. Which item are you questioning?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Item 122.


James Sinclair: Last year we had an item of $500,000 in expectation of accounts still outstanding, but actually we made no payments at all. The settlements were all in favour of the crown rather than in favour of the people who were applying for payment of subsidies. This year there are some still outstanding, but in view of last year's experience the estimate at the outside is $75,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Contingencies and miscellaneous-
129. Cost of telephone service at Ottawa for all departments, $605,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the parliamentary assistant tell us whether this increase is due mainly to more telephones or to the increased cost of telephone service?


James Sinclair: It is due to three things. The first thing is we had a standard agreement on switchboards and general service with the Bell Telephone Company which was renewed last year. The old agreement had been in effect for twelve years. The second thing was the increase in rates granted as a consequence of the board of transport commissioners' review of Bell Telephone Company rates. The third fact is the increase in the number of telephones on circuits.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Finance
General items of payroll costs including superannuation payments-
130. To provide for a government contribution to the superannuation fund in an amount equal to the estimated current payments of individual contributors in the previous fiscal year, $7,966,800.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Why is there no reference to the contribution of $75 million last year?


James Sinclair: 
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes, but I understand that last year the government put up in addition to this, and I grant you on a different basis, $75 million. Am I not right?


James Sinclair: Are you worrying about the printed comparison, the fact that it is not included in the printed comparison?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes.


James Sinclair: Unfortunately the printed comparison was compiled before the last supplementary estimate was brought down. It will be reflected in next year's.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General administration-
689. Comptroller of the treasury-central office and branch offices administration-further amount required to organize for payment of universal old age pensions, $643,700.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to take a moment to indicate to the parliamentary assistant the terms of a speech I might have made but which I am not going to make at this stage of the session. I draw his attention to it in the hope that the department may look into the matter between now and the next session. I have in my hand some material obtained from the United States bureau of the budget which comes under the office of the president at Washington. It relates to the plan they have in effect there on the basis of which they make awards to civil servants of various departments and branches of the government for suggestions that result in improvements or economies in government administration. Among this material is a very interesting and exhaustive table showing particulars of suggestions received from a wide range of departments, the number of suggestions acted upon, the amounts of the awards, and the estimated savings resulting from the suggestions.
I will only give two figures, and just the round figures at that. The table shows that for the fiscal year 1949, which is the last one I was able to get, awards were paid to civil servants amounting to something over $500,000. The table shows that something more than $18 million was saved as the result

of implementing the suggestions for which the awards were given. The material is very interesting, and I am sure the Department of Finance, if it has not already got it, can get it from Washington. I will do no more now than simply say that I hope the matter will be looked into.


James Sinclair: I am very happy to tell the hon. member that the government has already anticipated that, and that in the financial administration bill, which was introduced last week and stood over until the fall, there is provision for such payments for the first time in our statutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am very glad to hear that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grants to universities-
690. To provide grants to universities and equivalent institutions of higher learning in amounts not exceeding in total for each province 50 cents per head of population of that province, as determined by the dominion bureau of statistics, and in accordance with regulations to be made by the governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, who is authorized to consult a committee drawn from the national conference of Canadian universities in regard to the apportionment of such grants among institutions within each province on the general principle of making such grants proportionate to the enrolment of students at the university level and pursuing courses recognized as leading to a university degree, $7,100,000.
Mr. Boisvert:: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a short question. Is it intended that the money to be paid out to universities, pursuant to the Massey commission report, will be for the benefit of all institutions?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Yes. The government of course wants to avoid doing anything that would look like interference with educational matters in the provinces, but the declaration I made was that an amount approximately equal to 50 cents per capita would be provided for each province, and that within the province it would be allocated for university aid in proportion to the number of registrations of full-time students at university level proceeding to university degrees. The item provides that the Minister of Finance will have the right to set up a committee drawn from the national council of Canadian universities for the preparation of regulations. As between the provinces there can be no discussion. It will be a mathematical calculation as to what amount each province will get. Then within the province that will be divided according to the number of registrations in that province. The subsidy should go to the institution which has the registration that creates entitlement to a portion of the grant. Whether that would be paid directly to each institution or paid to the university will depend upon regulations that will be established, but it would seem to

me that the payment to which a registered student entitles an institution should go to the institution where he is registered.


Major James William Coldwell: I think this is one of the most satisfactory proposals the government has made with regard to higher education. As the Prime Minister has explained, it seems that the government is placing upon the province the responsibility for the division of the money after it has been granted on a per capita basis. In other words, the province is still responsible for everything that is done with regard to the disbursement of the grant after the amount paid to the province has been decided upon on a per capita basis.


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I did not intend to imply it was going to be remitted to the provincial governments for distribution.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not mean that.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I intended to indicate that, within a province, it would be the authorities of the institutions in the province who would determine how many registered students there were in the province, and the institutions in which they were to be found, and the grant would then be mathematically, I would hope, contributed to the institutions where those registrations occurred.


Major James William Coldwell: I might have said government, but I did not mean government. I presume that all recognized universities would get the grant.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: What is intended is that all the institutions, authorized by provincial legislatures to grant degrees, would be recognized as of university level, and then they would determine what grades constitute the registrations at university level.


Mr. Nowlan:: I do not want to delay the passage of this item for thirty seconds, but I commend the Prime Minister and the government for the speed with which they have dealt with this matter. I know that all of those who were associated with universities in Canada will appreciate the recognition which has been given to this fine report of the Massey commission. In our peculiar situation in the maritimes, with the numerous universities we have and with Mount Allison on one side of the border and Acadia on the other, I think there may be some difficulty in working out this mathematical proportion to which the Prime Minister has referred. I know that can be worked out later on, so I simply point it out in passing and commend the government for bringing this measure into effect.


Angus MacInnis: I was not able to hear everything the Prime Minister said in connection
80709-319J
Supply-Finance
with this vote, but I suppose care will be taken to make sure the provinces do not reduce their contributions to the universities because of this grant. As the member for Rosetown-Biggar has said, I believe this is a desirable vote. The information I have seen seems to indicate that during the next four years there will be a drop in the number of graduates from universities. I believe the drop is about two thousand or three thousand. I should like to be assured that the provinces will not be allowed to diminish their contributions just because of this grant.


Jean-Paul Stephen St-Laurent: We are being very careful not to appear to interfere with the responsibilities of the provincial governments with respect to universities. This is a vote for one year only, and in announcing it to the house I said that we hoped this would not be regarded as an occasion for reducing the normal assistance given by provincial administrations to their respective universities. I hope, and I feel confident, that the provincial governments will so regard their responsibilities. If anything different did occur, that would become known to parliament, and when another application was made to parliament, I have no doubt that parliament would take it into consideration.


Mr. Noseworihy:: Before this item passes, I want to add my voice to those who have already spoken in commending the government for this grant. To me this indicates one more instance in which the government is recognizing the national importance of education, and one more step along the way towards federal aid to education, not only at the university but at secondary and public school levels. I sincerely hope that, when the report of the royal commission is being considered, and legislation based on that report introduced, grants similar to this will become annual grants to universities. I know that there is a committee to be set up which is to give some assistance in apportioning the grant money to the various provincial institutions. We agree with the Prime Minister that the government is anxious not to interfere in any way with provincial rights in the matter of education.
I sincerely hope that when this grant is apportioned to the institutions, those institutions will use the major part of this grant to supplement the salaries of their professors, lectures and if possible to reduce the fees to incoming students. There is a great need for help in both of those fields. Last week end I had a good illustration of the need so far as university men are concerned. I met a university professor who was spending his summer working for one of the breweries. He is pushing beer cartons around. He told me
5022	HOUSE OF
Supply-Health and Welfare he was getting more money for that job than he was earning at the university. He did admit, however, that the job was very restful mentally.
We noted a few months ago that all the universities had increased the fees to incoming students. I am confident that if in the 1920's, and the decade preceding that, university fees had been what they are today there are a great many of us who would never have seen the inside of a university. Today the fees are such that it is making it extremely difficult for those who come from working class homes to go through the universities. This grant, if it could be used to reduce those fees or to provide bursaries for students to assist them, will have rendered a great service to Canadian education and to the building of Canadian citizens.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I want to ask the Prime Minister one question. This vote provides grants to universities and equivalent institutions of higher learning. Would they be institutions that were not in the category of granting degrees? Does it take in both of those?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I understand it is institutions authorized by the provincial authorities to grant degrees or institutions affiliated with them and which get their degrees through their affiliations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE Welfare branch-
734. Old age security-to conduct the necessary registration for universal old age pensions and to organize and administer the payment of such pensions, $508,500.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I want to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he can make a brief statement as to the plans the minister and the department have in mind with respect to the registration for the universal pension? Can the minister tell us when an announcement will be made as to where people can get their forms, where to apply and so on?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am trying to catch a plane in eight minutes, and that is the reason that I have risen.
I should like to say in answer to my hon. friend that the forms for application are practically completed. We hope to have them in the hands of our regional family allowance offices not later than the end of July. This next week, over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I am taking advantage of the opportunity to outline some of the procedures.
We have made arrangements with the provincial authorities to assist us in this respect. Some of the money now being voted is to
[Mr. Noseworthy.3

provide for temporary personnel who will be allocated to our ten offices; and we will also use the permanent staff of the family allowance offices for the purpose of supplementing the work that will be done by those who are engaged in the process of registration that will go on between now and the end of the year.
Ample opportunity will be taken in the press, over the radio and through other appropriate media to inform the public as to the steps being taken. Those who are now in receipt of the old age pension do not need tc register and we urge that they do not register, inasmuch as our task will be an extremely difficult one, and we do not want it to be unnecessarily complicated. But my hon. friend may be sure that every step is being taken so that there will be no delay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister said that the necessary forms would be out in the regional offices by the end of July. May we take it that the advertising in the newspapers and the announcements over the radio will appear and be made at about that time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is the intention.


John George Diefenbaker: There is one question I should like to ask the minister, and it is in connection with proof of age. There are numbers of cases that arise from time to time where it is impossible to prove age by reason of the fact that the people in question came from continental Europe where there is not available today any registration system that is helpful, or where the registration systems have been destroyed; and when those people came to Canada, the situation was that they had no registration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The interprovincial old age pensions board will be meeting on July 16. We expect that that question-which, of course, is one which has also to be arranged with regard to the Old Age Assistance Act- will be reviewed' with them at that time, and the principles that will apply to proof of age with regard to that measure will presumably apply to universal pensions when they come into effect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister said that the forms in connection with the universal pension were already prepared. I assumed that they would deal with the question of age.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. They do not deal with the question of proof. They deal with assertion of age. The matter of proof is a matter of regulation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
171. Departmental administration, $278,399.
John George Diefenbaker: Many of these items have been dealt with on previous occasions and for that reason the same careful examination may not take place on this occasion. However, I should like to ask the minister with regard to the case of Nolan, Hallet and Carey, a case from Manitoba, where the department interested itself in litigation as between two private parties in reference to an order in council passed by the government under emergency powers.
The trial court made its decision. The Department of Justice carried the appeal to the appeal court of Manitoba, and the appeal court decided against the contention of the Attorney General of Canada. Then the case was carried to the supreme court; and again the supreme court decided against the viewpoint of the Department of Justice in the interpretation being given to the right of the court to review the question whether or not there was an emergency that justified the order in council.
I remember so well the Minister of Justice, when he introduced the bill abolishing appeals to the privy council, pointing out that in abolishing the appeals the last vestiges of colonialism were being swept aside. I also remember that he pointed out that appealing to the privy council weakened the authority, the dignity and the sense of responsibility of the members of the Supreme Court of Canada.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Will my hon. friend quote that statement? I do not remember having said that. I wish he would turn it up.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not the quotation here.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that I never made any such statement.


John George Diefenbaker: That was my conclusion from his words. But when the minister says that, I, not having the quotation here, must accept his statement that he never made any such statement or gave any such impression. However, the supreme court was established as the final court. I understand that the decision of the supreme court on this important matter is now being carried to the privy council, a course which is scarcely the tribute to the supreme court that I believe should be paid to that court by the Minister of Justice who introduced the legislation giving finality to its decisions. However that may be, the appeal is being made, a fact which indicates that the Minister of Justice is not satisfied that the decision of the
Supply-J ustice
Supreme Court of Canada was the correct one. Otherwise there would not be the appeal.
Then the minister gave utterance to the expression of a viewpoint that was scarcely a proper one to be expressed by a person occupying the position of the upholder of the rule of law. I care not what the principles at stake are in the Nolan, Hallet and Carey case, the supreme court, if upheld by the privy council, will in fact be establishing the law in reference to this important subject. After all, the rule of law demands recognition that the decisions of the court, as to matters that have already taken place prior to that date, shall be accepted as finally decided upon. However, the Minister of Justice has given notice that if the privy council does not decide the way that the Department of Justice believes the law should be on the question of emergency, an order in council is going to be passed to deny the application of the decision in the Nolan case to any of the other parties regarding whom the litigation has been proceeded with. Are the press reports correct in that regard? Will the minister make a statement showing the expenditures up to date for legal fees and the like for the carrying on of this case, as well as the prospective costs of the appeal to the privy council? This is more than just difficulties between parties. This move of appealing to the privy council is one of very considerable concern to the establishment of that regard for the supreme court that the supreme court deserves.
The supreme court has been strengthened by the additions that were made. The right of appeal is there, and it has been exercised by various private litigants in so far as litigation is concerned that commenced prior to the abolition of the right of appeal to the privy council. I feel that the taking of the appeal from so august a court, so firmly established as it is now as the final court, by the action of the government of Canada, strikes at the supreme court in a way that should not be countenanced. When I say that I am not speaking of any of the issues as between the plaintiff and the defendant in this action, or the intervener, the attorney general. I am speaking of the principle at stake. Now that the supreme court is the final court, surely the first blow at a decision of that court should not be made by the Department of Justice and by the Minister of Justice who introduced the legislation in order to remove that feature, as it was called, or badge of colonialism. The first blow at the decision of that court should not be taken by the people of Canada as a whole.
I am not going to labour it, but I feel most keenly that the appeal that is being taken

Supply-Justice
indicates at least a suspicion of the view that the supreme court was not correct in its judgment, otherwise there would be no appeal. The taking of the appeal by the Department of Justice on behalf of the government of Canada is an action that cannot but have an effect that is not desirable, having regard to the importance that the supreme court now assumes in being established as Canada's final court of appeal.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, to begin with, I am sure that my hon. friend will realize that this case to which he refers is sub judice because, within the matter of a few days, the government will be applying to the privy council for leave to carry this appeal to the privy council. Therefore my scope for discussing a case which is sub judice is very considerably narrowed.


John George Diefenbaker: I was limited in the same way.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I agree that my hon. friend was limited in the same way. The government took the action about which my hon. friend complains because they regarded the moral issue which was involved in this matter as being a very clear one. That issue was that in war there is danger of inflation. It is the government's duty, as far as it can, to prevent inflation. To this end it introduced controls, and when they had served their purpose, after the war was over, the government took off these controls by a policy of decontrol. Now, when these controls are taken off there can result from decontrol large unearned profits.
The moral issue is: should the government, by its policy of decontrol, prevent those unearned profits, or should it create and bestow them upon a few favoured persons holding large quantities of the commodity being decontrolled? Should the government provide those unearned profits for these favoured persons at a time when the mass of the nation is making sacrifices? The government's answer to those questions is that it should certainly prevent such unearned profits, and that has been its policy. And it was in the carrying out of this policy that this appeal has been taken, and that the statement to which my hon. friend took exception was made by me.
Now, the question arises in this connection as to where my hon. friend and his party stand on this policy. Do they support the government's policy, or are they opposed to it? And if they are opposed, are they opposed openly and directly; or does the opposition take the more indirect and subtle form of opposing the things which the government must do in order to make this policy effective?

The secondary moral issue which is involved in this policy of preventing unearned profits on decontrol is whether the policy should apply uniformly to all commodity owners, or apply only to those who acquiesce in its application? The government believes that it should apply these provisions uniformly to those who acquiesce in them, and also and equally to those who resist their application; and that is what the government has tried and plans to do.
Then there is the legal issue, and which, because this case is sub judice, I am not in a position now to discuss; but I think I should say that the government has an interest in this judgment which goes much further than the outcome of this case itself. We now may be moving into another period in which controls may be necessary. It is therefore of the highest importance that we should know what the law concerning controls and decontrol is before we begin any consideration of amending it to suit our present needs. If the supreme court judgment in the Hallet and Carey case stands, the law with regard to this subject matter will in our opinion be left in -a less certain position than it was before the Hallet and Carey case was decided. It seems to us that, if there is any possibility of clarifying the law in relation to this subject matter by means of an appeal to the privy council, it is our responsibility to take such an appeal; and that is what we are now attempting to do. That brings me to the third issue, the one which the hon. member for Lake Centre has raised, namely, the issue of the propriety of appealing from the supreme court to the privy council.
It is alleged that the passage by parliament at the request of the government of an act making the Supreme Court of Canada the court of last resort was-and it was indeed- an expression of our great confidence in the competence of the supreme court. I do not know how we could express our confidence more completely than by this act. My hon. friend from Lake Centre now argues from this, that because we have great confidence in the supreme court we should never let our minds entertain any doubt whatever as to the propriety of every single decision of every single judge of that court. I cannot agree with him upon this point. The court is made up of jurists who are extremely able and competent, but who, being human beings, are not infallible. Therefore, the fact that we have the greatest possible confidence in our supreme court is no reason why we should automatically agree with every single judgment and every reason for judgment of every judge on that bench, even although the

reasons for judgment may not all agree with one another, as in this case all of them did not.
Now I grant you that, leaving out other serious considerations, it would have been preferable for the government not to appeal any of the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada at this particular juncture. That was one reason why we did not appeal other judgments, as we might otherwise have done.


John George Diefenbaker: Which things?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: There were other judgments which we might have appealed, but which we did not. But in this particular Hallet and Carey case, it was the fact that the much less critical issue of propriety was so far overweighed by the legal issue and by the moral issues, particularly by the latter, that we took the step that we did. For the real issue here is whether the government is to carry out effectively its policy of preventing unearned profits directly attributable to a government control or decontrol policy.
It would seem that any policy or attitude other than the one which the government has followed would be unacceptable. I do not think that Canadians will willingly submit to the reduction in their standard of living which is unavoidably involved in meeting the cost of preparing to prevent a modern war if they think that, as a direct result of government policies, some of their fellow citizens at the same time are reaping millions of dollars of fortuitous profits arising directly out of control or decontrol policy, while the government and parliament stand by without using their power to prevent such profits.


John George Diefenbaker: That argument advanced by my hon. and learned friend denies every principle and rule of law. That is an argument I did not expect my hon. friend to make. He says the government is now entering into the period of control against inflation. He does not say that is the reason the appeal is being taken, but he says there is a great moral issue to be determined. Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister: Is the Supreme Court of Canada as at present constituted not able to deal with moral issues? Is the privy council, to which my hon. friend made such direct references two years ago, regarded by him today as more fitted to deal with moral issues than the Supreme Court of Canada, which dealt with the issues that were before that court in this case?
My hon. friend says the purpose is to prevent the unjust reaping of profits. Why, then, wait until the privy council decides? Why make an appeal from the supreme court, after having first set up the supreme court as the final court, and then take a judgment as important as this and make the statement
Supply-J ustice
that on the moral issues, by implication at least, the supreme court did not properly deal with the matter? Why did he not pass an order in council?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I must ask my hon. friend to withdraw any suggestion that there was any implication in my remarks that the supreme court did not deal with the moral issues of the matter. I think my hon. friend will agree with me that it is the duty of the supreme court, like all other courts, to deal with legal issues before them. That is all it can deal with.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I am coming to. And the privy council can deal only with legal issues and not with questions of moral issues? And that is the appeal that will be made there. And the only one that my bon. friend intends to make under the moral issue is to tell the privy council in advance, by his public statements, that if it does not decide that the supreme court was wrong in the matter he intends to use the prerogative and power of the governor in council by order in council to say that, regardless of what the law may be declared' to be, the government will say that the law shall be as defined by the government by order in council.
That is exactly the point I am making. I regard this as a most serious thing in this country. I can still hear my hon. friend in stentorian tones speaking in these words- and again I have not Hansard before me and am just quoting a quotation by my hon. friend:
The real issue in this matter, I submit, is whether we, as members of parliament, can rise above lesser loyalties and lesser considerations to think and act as citizens and legislators of a great country . , . If in smallness of mind and meanness of spirit we needlessly perpetuate such a situation (as privy council appeals), we are unworthy of the efforts and sacrifices of our fellow-Canadians, and undeserving of the bounty which providence has bestowed upon cur country.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sorry my hon. friend did not make my speech for me. It sounds pretty good when he delivers it.


John George Diefenbaker: Those words were spoken in this chamber three years ago. I remember my hon. friend speaking about fetters and colonialism, that those things were in the past. And the first person to utilize the right of appeal to the privy council against a decision affecting every part of our country is the Minister of Justice, who says that moral issues transcend the question as to the propriety of appealing against a decision of the supreme court.
I ask the Minister of Justice this: Did he say he was going to pass an order in council, provided the privy council did not decide the way he wants them to? If he did, then why

Supply-J ustice
does he not pass an order in council, now that the supreme court has made its decision, and not undermine the dignity, the respect, the finality and the regard that the supreme court deserves, now that it is our final court.
I am not up to now prepared to trust the governor in council to decide moral issues by order in council in our country.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: On a point of privilege, my hon. friend is quite incorrect when he suggests that at any time I suggested we were going to pass any orders in council in relation to this matter. That is quite incorrect.


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to have the denial, because the press carried that statement, allegedly made by the Minister of Justice.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I suggest the press did not.


John George Diefenbaker: I will say what it was, and I will withdraw if I am wrong, because I have not the clipping here.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I have.


John George Diefenbaker: I understood the minister was reading from something, and apparently it was the interview he gave. The minister allegedly stated that if the privy council did not decide the issue in accordance with the claim of the dominion government he would see to it that an order in council would be passed.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, I never said that at all.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me finish, and then the minister can say whether he said it. He said he would see to it that an order in council would be passed that would deprive all parties who took unjust advantage of the judgment of any illicit gains. If the minister did not say that, was he correctly reported?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In this particular connection I said:
Should this appeal not be successful, the government of Canada, being desirous of applying to the decontrol measures in oats and barley the same principles of preventing fortuitous profits as were applied to other commodities, gives notice that it will, in order to carry out the principle of preventing such fortuitous profits, introduce legislation in parliament-
My hon. friend has orders in council on the brain.


John George Diefenbaker: What date was that? There was an earlier edition.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is the only statement that was ever given out.


John George Diefenbaker: I am asking the minister the date.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is the only statement that was ever given out to any person at all and it was on or about February 15, 1951. I think perhaps it would be better if I completed that. It reads:

-in order to carry out the principle of preventing such fortuitous profits, introduce legislation in parliament confirming the settlements with all of the commercial traders in oats and barley, other than Mr. Nolan, and will, therefore, not recognize claims made on behalf of such commercial traders upon the wheat board or upon the government in derogation of the settlements already made.
Meanwhile the government is authorizing application for leave to appeal rather than seeking legislation at this time, because it feels no exception in favour of Mr. Nolan should be recognized until every possibility still open for judicial determination of the question has been exhausted.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister has given his statement and I have no hesitation in saying that that statement does not contain the reference to which I have referred, in spite of the fact that reference was made to it in the press. The minister says that he did not say that an order in council would be passed and I accept his statement. I ask him a simple question: Does he regard it as being necessary to go overseas to the privy council in search of justice in connection with this case?	[DOT]


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I cannot answer that question without being repetitious.


John George Diefenbaker: Be repetitious.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I apologize for being repetitious. I shall put it in this way. My hon. friend is quite right in saying that when the supreme court judgment was delivered we were of the opinion, quite respectfully and deferentially but nevertheless of the opinion, that it had the effect of changing the jurisprudence upon that subject from what it had been up until that time. Maybe we were wrong in that view, but that was the view which we entertained.
We were of the opinion also that, if the view as we conceived it to be of the law prior to the supreme court judgment were still to obtain, it would be very much in the interest, not only of the disposition of this particular case but of the operation of any control measures which future circumstances might make necessary. With that end in view and because the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was not unanimous and because the reasons for judgment of those judges who found against the government were not in agreement one with another, we considered that in this particular case upon balance it was wise and proper that we should take an appeal to the privy council which, as my hon. friend knows, gives one judgment of the court which if given will be definitive of the law upon that point. The moral question with which my statement dealt as to what action might be taken after that would not arise until after the privy council judgment had been given, and might not arise at all.

It was thought in the meantime upon an issue oi this sort that it was more honourable and more honest with everyone concerned for the government to state its position fairly even in advance of the appeal.


John George Diefenbaker: What does the minister mean by saying that the privy council would clarify the law? Would not the Supreme Court of Canada clarify the law? I ask a second question which is part of my other question. Does the minister believe that the Supreme Court of Canada, now that it is the final court, should deliver just one judgment instead of judgments by the various judges?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Dealing with the first question, our view in the Department of Justice is that the law as it stood before the supreme court judgment was given was not clarified by that judgment. I ask my hon. friend not to urge me to go any further than that because this case is sub judice. We are on the verge of being improper in discussing it to the extent we have, but I want to be frank for the purposes of the present debate. That is the reason why we took the appeal.
With regard to the second matter which my hon. friend has raised, I do not think that that is relevant to the present discussion and I would prefer not to express an opinion upon a matter which involves the court's control over its own business.


John George Diefenbaker: When I made reference to the order in council, and I accept the minister's statement that he did not say that, I was not referring to the speech he made in the house on February 16 last. I was referring to the statement made the night or day following the decision being handed down by the supreme court. That appeared in various papers across Canada. I was not referring to what the minister said on February 16 in the house, I was referring to the statement which the minister said he did not give to the Canadian Press or to any press that if the privy council decision upheld the supreme court it was the intention to proceed by order in council.
The minister says that he never said that, and I accept his statement in that regard. However, the explanation he has given does not meet the challenge-I want to repeat this -which goes to the ability and the capacity and the judgments and the learning of the supreme court. We set up this court as a final court of appeal. We say that its decisions will be final in this country. Parliament intended that each member of the court would give his own individual judgment, or at least that the various views would be represented in the judgment, as was the case in the matter of Nolan.
Supply-Justice
We are going to follow the system followed in the United States supreme court rather than in the privy council. Yet on this case, a case of vast importance to the interpretation of our constitution and constitutional powers, the taking of an appeal will in my opinion have the effect and the result of not paying to that court the abiding respect which its judgments deserve as a final court. No amount of explanation as to moral issues will suffice because our court is fitted to decide moral issues. There is no question as to consequences because courts are not concerned with consequences. In this case the chief justice of the Manitoba court of appeal stated that he could not understand what the government had done here.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend but I do not think he should discuss this case in those terms when it is sub judice.


John George Diefenbaker: What the Manitoba court of appeal said is not in issue.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As my hon. friend knows, it may emerge finally as a reason for judgment adopted by the privy council. It would not be the first time they have adopted a Manitoba appeal court judgment.


John George Diefenbaker: I say to the minister that I for one feel that the action of the government in this regard has struck at the very vitals of the independence and the sense of responsibility that the supreme court deserves to have now that parliament has given to it finality in the matter of judgment.


George Alexander Drew: I think that there is a great deal of importance in the fact that the Minister of Justice has decided to pursue this course as has been outlined by the hon. member for Lake Centre, after himself asserting strong reasons why this should not be done. I suggest they cannot be passed over now because these were the reasons given for asking that this legislation be passed when the bill was presented for second reading on September 20, 1949. One of the reasons given by the Minister of Justice was the practical reason which he put forward that there should be no threat against the less wealthy individual of having to take his appeal to another continent and to accept the expenses involved. He said that that threat should be withdrawn.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend is worrying about the litigant in this case, I can inform him, if my doing so will not be interpreted as an attack against wealth, that this is a wealthy man who is quite able to look after himself.
5028

Supply-J ustice


George Alexander Drew: We are not dealing with individuals. We are dealing with the principle of carrying this case to a court where the minister thought that cases should not longer be carried. In this particular case the minister did say exactly what the hon. member for Lake Centre interpreted in his own words at the outset, and it is found at page 73 of Hansard of the autumn session of 1949. The minister said:
Indeed, sir, we desire in our supreme court to emulate that greatness-
He is referring to the privy council.
-as a court of ultimate exclusive appellate jurisdiction; and we think that the best, if not the only way, in which we can begin to do so, is to make our own supreme court also one of exclusive appellate and ultimate jurisdiction, by passing the bill we now have before us.
In other words, to give our own supreme court its dignity we must stop going to the privy council. Then in his closing remarks he said:
Surely, Mr. Speaker, we have here a country which from the beginning has had many qualities of greatness, which is more united, magnanimous and powerful today than it has ever been, and whose resources and possibilities seem to require only that we should ourselves act as the citizens of a great country to make our Canada achieve the destiny of which she is capable. We, the citizens of such a country, should not ask those of another, even though they be of our own blood, to decide our lawsuits for us, interpret for us the laws which we pass here, and provide amendments for our constitution at our request when we need them.
The same minister who said that on September 20, 1949, now says that they seek a definitive judgment to interpret our laws for us. What is more, the same minister has indicated that in addition they are making public, at the time that this case is sub fudice, the threat that no matter what the decision is they will take care of it anyway. If that is consistent with an approach to our judicial processes, then I think that we still have a great deal to learn in this country about the dignity of our courts. In any event, whether or not this case proceeds, the minister has one course before him which he could well adopt to be consistent with what he has said before. He could make it perfectly clear that he has no thought of carrying out the threat that he made in saying: Unless we get what we want at the privy council then we will ride high, wide and handsome over the laws as they have been interpreted by this final court of appeal.


Mr. Wylie:: Mr. Chairman, it is not very often that I speak in the house, and I have no intention of getting into an argument with the Minister of Justice. I also have no intention of delaying the house, but I have a problem that I think should be brought before
[Mr. Garson.i
the Minister of Justice. I regret having to wait until the last day of the session to discuss it.


An hon. Member:: So do we.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: However, it has happened that the minister's estimates have come up on the last day. The matter has to do with comics, sex comics, crime comics, or whatever you might call them. Perhaps the Minister of Justice knows something about what has developed in Medicine Hat during the past two months so far as crime comics are concerned. Possibly I could discuss this matter under a particular item but as it is fairly general I feel I am quite in order now. We have got into a situation where I feel something should be done about it. It will be recalled that I took an active part in trying to get crime comics and sexy comics banned in Canada. I certainly appreciated what the government did in 1949 to do away with many comics that were on our newsstands.
However, what has happened today is that they have changed the outside cover while the inside is still the same. In Medicine Hat we have a news agent who is very well known and is a highly respected citizen. He had no intention of making money out of sex comics as they were published before 1949. Mr. Watson has the same idea today. I admire him for it, but just because he has refused to handle some publications put out by certain firms in Toronto he is going to lose the handling of many good publications. I am going to refer to a few of the publications that he is liable to lose. I have two letters here that I might read to the minister. However, I am sure he will give the matter consideration without my wasting time doing that. This man is liable to lose the handling of Time, Life, Newsweek, Look, Popular Mechanics, Field and Stream, Collier's, Woman's Home Companion and American. Those are just a few. I should like to read to the minister what I have on file.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: You can yell "carried" all you like but it will not make any difference to me. It seems to me that there is a monopoly in comics and magazines in Canada. I think it is about time that the government, through the Minister of Justice, did something about it so that news agents in our cities will not be compelled to handle all this-I do not know just what word to use; I know what I should like to use.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Trash.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Yes, trash, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says. I do not think our news agents should be compelled to

handle trash in order to get the agency for the other magazines. This is something for the Minister of Justice to look into. So far as I am concerned there is a situation developing in connection with crime comics and other magazines which should not be allowed. The sooner it is stopped, the better.
As I said earlier I have some letters here which I could read to the minister. If he wants to see them, I shall be glad to send them over to him. I think it is unfair, when we have an agent of the calibre of the man we have in Medicine Hat, a good family man, that he is compelled to handle all the trash that comes along. If he does not handle it he loses the agency for every other magazine. I hope the minister will take this all into consideration and see that the Combines Investigation Act is used to stop this sort of thing.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Before the minister replies to that I have-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think I should reply to this.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But I have a suggestion to make.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: But my remarks will perhaps obviate the necessity for the suggestion. We have already taken action by passing laws to prohibit crime comics. The enforcement of those laws, in so far as prosecutions under them are concerned, is entirely the responsibility of the provincial attorneys general. When a publishing company, as a condition to furnishing its purchasers with copies of decent magazines, insists that they take a lot of trash of this sort through the exercise of what perhaps may be some monopoly position, then we have regarded that as the responsibility of the combines investigation branch. Several days ago we took action in this very matter upon the basis of complaints that came to us from the province of the hon. member. In so far as it lies within our power we want to back up a news dealer who is decent and honourable enough that he will even entertain the possibility of some sacrifice to himself rather than handle this rubbish.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: I want to thank the minister for that information. I do think something must be done. We know that it is up to the provincial governments to see that decent literature is placed on the newsstands. We did pass a law here in 1949 in connection with crime comics. At that time there was a long debate on the matter, and I took part in it. Perhaps I got into trouble with some of the publishers in Toronto. If those publishers in Toronto still want to publish that trash, let us not conceal it. Let us make them put it right out in the open, and not cover it up with a plain piece of paper.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Supply-J ustice
with so I put forward the suggestion which I hope the minister will consider between now and next session.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am quite willing to consider any suggestion which comes from the hon. member who has shown a special interest in this matter. But I would remind him that on a previous occasion he brought forward a bill, the government considered it, and then in consultation with the practical man who has to enforce it in the various provinces, we greatly strengthened that bill from the form in which it had originally been put, and passed it in the form which it now is on the statute books. In that strengthening process we had the advice of the people who, in my judgment, are best qualified, and that is those who have the onerous job bf enforcing the law. We were grappling with this question of where one is going to draw the line between freedom of speech and the beauties of literature on the one hand and obscenity upon the other. That is an extremely difficult question which has not been solved with complete satisfaction, I think, in any free society in the world as yet.


Edmund Davie Fulton: If I might just make this observation, that amendment did not deal with obscenity at all.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If I might just finish this sentence, I should like to do so. I would doubt whether any committee we might set up would add much to the law which we have on the statute books at the present time; because this represents the expert views of people who have been charged with the administration of justice. I should have thought that perhaps what we need now is a little bit more enforcement of that law rather than any tinkering with it or trying to improve it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear, because the minister does not appear to have grasped the point I was getting at. He has referred to the law enacted in 1949 as dealing with the problem of controlling obscene literature. He referred to the question of obscenity. I wish to point out to him, as I did at the moment when he was speaking, that it did not deal with the question of obscenity or obscene literature. That amendment which we passed in 1949 dealt exclusively with the comic literature known as crime comics.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes. If my hon. friend reads the amendment, I think he will find that it did. It dealt entirely with crime comics. What is being suggested now is that although crime comics, at least in the form in which

they were then being published, appear to have gone from the newsstands, their place is being taken by another form of literature to which I am directing my remarks in the main, a most offensive and vicious type of obscene literature, namely, this trashy, rubbishy, and dangerously offensive sex material. That is the kind of thing which was not dealt with by the amendment of 1949. It is because, as I have said, it seems to me more difficult-more tricky, if you like-to deal with that kind of offensive literature than it is to deal with the crime comic type of literature, that I am suggesting that the whole question be taken under advisement first of all by this committee which I have suggested; and that would not preclude in any way the subsequent step of referring the suggestions of that committee to the attorneys general of the provinces, as I think should be done. It is to deal with that type of literature that I am now making this suggestion.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I do not know whether my hon. friend became aware of this fact during the course of that bill through the house, but while his original amendment dealt only with crime comics, it was an amendment to that section of the code which dealt with crime comics, obscene literature and the like; and in the course of submitting his suggestion and others of our own to the attorneys general of the various provinces and their staffs, we necessarily obtained their views upon this related question of obscenity.
The only difficulty about opening up the matter again is, I should think, that unless some extreme ingenuity is exercised by the members of this proposed committee, we shall probably end up by submitting to provincial crown prosecutors what in substance would be the same material that we submitted on this previous occasion. As my hon. friend knows, this effort of ours was a tidying up of one or two sections of the code. My hon. friend suggested that an amendment be made to them. In the course of consideration of his amendment we necessarily considered the provisions of the sections themselves. If he will examine the remarks of other hon. members-and certainly in my own remarks upon that same amendment I dealt with the matter at great length-he will find that particular question of obscenity was dealt with.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: Mr. Chairman, may I repeat what I said when I first spoke. There appears to be a combine and a monopoly in connection with comics in Canada. When one publisher who is publishing crime comics, sex magazines or anything else, gets together with another company publishing what you might call good comics and tells an agent such as the

one we have in Medicine Hat that his contract is cancelled because he will not handle this trashy stuff, there is a monopoly in existence. That is what I am objecting to today. It seems to me that a situation of that kind should come under the Combines Investigation Act. Without a doubt there is a monopoly in connection with the handling of crime comics and many of our other good magazines today. I think it is about time that the matter was looked into.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, I told my hon. friend in the clearest language I could command that we have been looking into it. In order to make it abundantly explicit, I may add that it is two or three weeks since we started looking into it; the matter is still being considered, and will be carried right along.


William Duncan McKay Wylie: We are glad to hear that.


George Alexander Drew: The minister has just said, in effect, that what we require is better administration of the laws we have rather than tinkering with those laws. It is in relation to that remark and that point of view that I wish to refer to the fact that every statement that may be made in the House of Commons or may have been made during this present session in regard to the strengthening of the laws dealing with subversive or traitorous activities is utterly meaningless unless the laws are acted upon when they are passed. As an example, I would just draw to the minister's attention the sort of thing that is going on and with which it must surely be possible to deal under the laws as now widened if not under the laws which already existed.
On May 2 last there appeared in different papers in Ontario the report of a May-day gathering in Toronto. I give this particular quotation from the Toronto Star perhaps with the idea that it might be regarded as the favourite Toronto newspaper of the Minister of Justice. As to what was said at that Mayday meeting, where the name of several well-known communists appeared, the report reads as follows, and I quote from the Toronto Star of May 2:
He was followed-
And the "he" in that case was a well-known communist, Mr. Norman Freed.
-by one of two women on the committee, Mrs. Kari Levitt, Vienna-born leader of the year-old National Federation of Labour Youth.
Mrs. Levitt, who has been in Canada three years, told the heckling students, "The poor boys in the U.S. are being drafted. You might be next. But you can go to college and have fun, not like the men of the Gloucester regiment' who were slaughtered the other day. The workers will fight for you.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out that if this report is correct-and it would appear to be correct because of the unanimity of the
Supply-J ustice
reports which appeared-it seems to be quite clear that this woman is not a citizen of this country, and that she had the effrontery to go before a group of Canadian young people and tell them to stay here, to have fun and not to bear their responsibilities which they might be ready to accept at a time like this.
Without invoking any of the provisions in regard to treason or any of the new provisions made in that respect, we were told that the amendments to the citizenship act would make it possible to deport people who acted in that way. I am drawing this matter to the attention of the minister with the suggestion-I will go further; with the most urgent request-that without delay he take appropriate steps to have this matter investigated; and if the facts are as they are found here, I suggest that this woman be deported without any further delay.
Then, Mr. Chairman, may I add that at this particular time, while we are hopefully waiting for the possibility that the fighting in Korea might be brought to a termination, while we know who caused that, we are still permitting the publication of scores of openly declared communist newspapers in languages other than English or French-and some in English and French-which have as their declared purpose the undermining of confidence in our democratic system, papers which contain week after week the most treasonable kinds of statements. I am confident that if they were properly examined plenty of ground would be found for action under the Criminal Code. I do suggest that, in the words of the minister, we will find that amongst the laws we have and under the laws we have we can deal with traitors of that kind.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of justice-
173. Miscellaneous expenditure, including expenses of litigated matters, $25,000.
John George Diefenbaker: A while ago I asked the minister what the legal costs were to date in connection with the Nolan case. I expect it comes under this item.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I will get these costs; I have not got them with me but I will have them ready by eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
178. Combines investigation branch, $248,060.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister tell us what the status is of the commission that was set up to consider possible amendments to the Combines Investigation Act-the status of the commission's work?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The status of the commission is the same as it was at the beginning. That

Supply-J ustice
is, they have complete carte blanche with no limiting terms of reference of any kind at all. They are given the act and they can bring back any kind of finding on it that they see fit by conducting any kind of investigation they see fit. They have found a very great public interest in their work, I think perhaps even more than they expected. They had hoped that all of the necessary briefs would come in by at least the late fall of last year. They were still receiving briefs well on past the new year. That has held up their work in two ways. First, because they could not get down to drafting of the report until they had a complete complement of briefs and materials and oral presentations; and second, because the members of the committee, all of whom are quite eminent men, with heavy duties of their own, had set aside time from their own work within which they had figured in advance that their work on the committee would be completed. When this allotted time was exhausted they found it increasingly difficult to make other times available from their own work. The result is that, as I was recently discussing with Mr. Justice McQuarrie, the chairman of the committee, just the other day, they now think that they will be able to bring down the report perhaps before the close of the fall session of parliament. I want to emphasize that they do not give a firm commitment upon that point, but that is their present target; and they say that given a reasonable amount of good fortune they think they can make it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister will table that report, I take it, as soon as it is in his hands?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Decidedly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Within fifteen days?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Quite.


Mr. Benidickson:: Is this the committee that is considering at the present time the question that is much thought about these days, namely, the question of resale price maintenance agreements?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, I think it would be in the sense that their terms of reference are so wide that they are in no way restricted. For my own part I do not see how they could deal with the subject with which they are dealing without including in their consideration this matter of resale price maintenance; and I understand they have sought representations concerning it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
180. To provide for the revision, classification and consolidation of the public general statutes of Canada, $57,500.
Stanley Howard Knowles: How is this work getting on? When may we expect the new revised statutes?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: By good fortune we might possibly be able to bring them in in 1952, but I would not want to make a firm commitment in that regard. This is a very large body of work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
704. To provide for the revision of the Criminal Code-further amount required, $20,000.
Gordon Francis Higgins: If the chairman will excuse me I have a couple of remarks to make. The minister knows what I want to say. It has to do with the question of the establishment of district courts in Newfoundland. There is something very wrong about it, as the minister knows. The minister has said in answer to questions that the provincial legislature has not made application, or at least has not passed laws in regard to it, and he cannot do anything about it. Something has to be done. Will the minister tell me what can be done?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I hope my hon. friend will permit me a slight correction in his remarks. I did not allege at all that the legislature of Newfoundland has not passed a district court act for that province which creates judicial vacancies for us to fill. What I do allege is that in connection with this matter we have been in close touch with the government of Newfoundland, which has set up what for that province is, I understand, an entirely new type of court. The minute you appoint judges to such courts it puts the whole system into operation and, from that point crystallizes it. From that point it is difficult for the provincial authorities to make any changes which on second thought might seem advisable.
The provincial government has been agreeable to our not making these appointments before now. I think we will be making some shortly. In the meanwhile I do not think it can be contended that litigants in Newfoundland are being seriously prejudiced because the last information that I have is to the effect that in the last judicial year the number of cases tried in the supreme court of Newfoundland1, which, by their nature and by the amount involved would have fallen within the district court jurisdiction, was nine. Having regard to the fact that supreme court judges there, as I am informed, are not terribly overburdened with the volume of supreme court litigation and the fact that they have under the terms of the district court act the express authority to exercise judicial powers under that act, and therefore, as supreme court judges, can try these district court cases under the district court act as

supreme court judges, I think the needs of district court litigants are being met during this interval. Otherwise I can assure the hon. member that perhaps we would not have been so deliberate in our consideration of the matter.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I think the minister said an appointment was to be made shortly.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Fairly shortly.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Where would it be made?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is a matter we still have to consider. We would not like to say which district.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It will be announced next week, after the house adjourns.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No-if I may reply to the interjection; there will not be an announcement next week after the house adjourns.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is standard practice.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not in this case.


Gordon Francis Higgins: Can something be done fairly quickly, because they do not know where they stand. Would the minister appoint these people soon?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Today, let us say.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
244. Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council. $4,000,000.
Douglas Scott Harkness: Why has order in council P.C. 1903 of April 26, 1951, which provided subventions under this item for coal mined in strip mines, been cut off?


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: That whole matter is under consideration. We hope to make a decision in the near future to the satisfaction of those concerned.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am glad to hear that, because I can see no reason why strip coal mines which have been in operation for a number of years and are now in some cases almost out of business should be discriminated against in the matter of subventions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
727. Geological surveys-administration, operation and maintenance, further amount required, $150,314.
Agar Rodney Adamson: I should like to make a suggestion which I believe would expedite the handling of estimates of this department. My suggestion would be that the estimates of this department and those of the Department of Resources and Development should be submitted to the mines, forests and waters committee. These estimates are technical,
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys and there are technical experts in both departments. To try to obtain information in committee of the whole is most unsatisfactory. In the great development of our natural resources now taking place I think all hon, members should have an opportunity to hear the experts from these departments. I hope my suggestion will be accepted because in the twelve years I have been here I believe the committee on mines, forests and waters has not met.


Gordon Francis Higgins: The minister will understand that certain areas in Newfoundland, because of the Newfoundland-Labrador bill, have been more or less alienated recently. These areas are of interest because of the mines and timber they contain. Has the minister considered that it might be advisable to ask for disallowance of that bill?


George Prudham: I know nothing of the bill, other than what I have heard in the house.


Gordon Francis Higgins: When he is aware of the bill, will he recommend its disallowance in October?


George Prudham: I do not pretend to be a lawyer. That is a matter for the Minister of Justice to decide. I should think the point to which the hon. member refers would be dealt with on its merits.


Gordon Francis Higgins: In that case-


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. The hon. member is not in order in discussing a bill which is not before us.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I believe I am right in asking the question, but I shall not press it. Would the Minister of Justice take notice and, when that bill comes before him, consider disallowance?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No doubt the hon. member is aware that in all cases all provincial legislation is so considered, as a matter of routine. In every case I sign a certificate to the effect that the law has been considered and that it shall take its course or, as in the very infrequent case, that consideration has been given to disallowance. So I am bound by the law to do what the hon. member suggests.


Gordon Francis Higgins: It is a most unconscionable act, as I see it. Before we resume our sittings in October I would ask him to consider seriously what I have suggested. Otherwise I shall have to make a direct application to him.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
723. General administration, estimates of the clerk, further amount required, $45,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before this item carries I think it might be noted that one of the reasons

Supply-Agriculture
these legistationi items are going through so rapidly is the great measure of confidence all of us in the House of Commons have in Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the House, the Sergeant-at-Arms, and all those who are in charge of the administration of the affairs of this House of Commons.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for his remarks. During the session hon. members have asked whether consideration would be given to granting an extra allowance to sessional employees of the house because of the extra work they have had to do during the session. That question was asked both on the floor of the house and privately by hon. members. The officers of the house have taken this matter into consideration and have decided, if it meets with the approval of the house, to allow three days' additional to each sessional employee of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Special-
669. To provide assistance in apple tree removal in the province of Nova Scotia under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $200,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the minister who is piloting these estimates through can tell us the total amount that has been spent for this purpose and whether it is intended to spend any more?


Walter Edward Harris: To date the assistance given by the federal government has amounted to $1,962,960. Discussions with the provincial authorities this spring indicated that the tree removal program could be completed this year, and the $200,000 in this vote is the final contribution by the federal government as their share of this project.


Mr, Knowles:: Does the minister have the total amount?


Walter Edward Harris: The explanation here covers only the $200,000 item and does not give the total.
The other night the hon. member for Brant-Wentworth asked for certain information, and with the permission of the committee I should like to place the following statement on Hansard:
With the exception of the peace river land recording district in British Columbia, and part of the provinces of Alberta and Newfoundland, the entire country has been established as a restricted area for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, and all cattle in the provinces of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, and Ontario, have been once tested or are in the process of being tested; 80 per cent in Manitoba, 56 per cent in Saskatchewan, 25 per cent in Alberta, 40 per cent in

British Columbia, and one per cent in Newfoundland, with a total of 5,896,500 cattle at March 31, 1951, or 75 per cent of all cattle in Canada.
Three million three hundred and thirty thousand of these are in 228 accredited areas; 30 of which (counties) with 1,250,676 cattle are in Ontario, and it is expected that all counties in the province will reach fully accredited status in the very near future. In addition there are 336,000 cattle in individually tested accredited herds.
During the fiscal period ending March 31, 1951, 2,854,152 tuberculin tests were conducted revealing 21,040 reactors with $1,173,901 paid in compensation. The incidence of infection found was -81 per cent, or a decrease from 2-29 per cent in 1948-49.
Total Fiscal Year Tests	Cattle Tested	Reactors	Compen- sation1946-47 .	. 785,096	735,238	3,852	$ 159,7101947-48 .	. 1,234,671	1,180,221	12,701	463,2951948-49 .	. 1,446,860	1,339,153	31,241	1,181,9341949-50 .	. 2,571,587	2,319,283	31,464	1,332,9741950-51 .	. 2,854,152	2,579,300	21,040	1,173,901Total .	8,892,366	8,193,195	100,271	$4,311,815Item	agreed to.	
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS

['the third reading of the bill.']
Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Walter Edward Harris: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1952, the sums of $1,852,975,067 and $195,172,180, respectively, be granted- out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Hon. Stuari S. Garson (for the Minister of Finance) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 406, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1952.
Motion agreed to, and bill read the first time.
['Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1952, the sums of $1,852,975,067 and $195,172,180, respectively, be granted- out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.']
Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
['By leave.']
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Are there
any copies of this bill available? We are acting absolutely inj the dark. How can we be

sure, having had no time to check these things, that the totals here are the totals of the estimates less the amounts which have been already appropriated in the usual form?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My hon. friend can be assured of that. I have checked with the treasury officers and I pass that assurance on to the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On schedule A.
['My hon. friend can be assured of that. I have checked with the treasury officers and I pass that assurance on to the committee.']
Gordon Francis Higgins: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to object, but I have not seen the bill, and I am supposed to be one of the people who pass the bill. I have asked for a copy of it and I have not seen it. I do not believe anyone else, other than the hon. member for Greenwood, has seen it. Of course I have no objection to his having seen it.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Schedule B agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.
['Mr. Chairman, I do not want to object, but I have not seen the bill, and I am supposed to be one of the people who pass the bill. I have asked for a copy of it and I have not seen it. I do not believe anyone else, other than the hon. member for Greenwood, has seen it. Of course I have no objection to his having seen it.']
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: By leave.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the third reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy Administrator desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Administrator had been pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend The Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
An act to vary the Manitoba Natural Resources Agreement.
An act respecting an Income Tax Agreement between Canada and Sweden, signed at Ottawa on the sixth day of April, 1951.
An act respecting a Succession Duty Convention and Protocol between Canada and France, signed at Paris on the sixteenth day of March, 1951.
The Royal Assent
An act respecting an Income Tax Convention between Canada and France, signed at Paris on the sixteenth day of March, 1951.
An act respecting Industrial Loan and Finance Corporation.
An	act	respecting	Canadian Pacific	Railway
Company.
An	act	respecting	Canadian Slovak	Benefit
Society.
An	act	to incorporate Co-operative Fire and
Casualty Company.
An act to incorporate The Missisquoi and Rouville Insurance Company.
An act respecting Canadian National Railways and to authorize the acquisition of the railway of The Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company.
An act to vary the Alberta Natural Resources Agreement.
An	act	to vary	the Saskatchewan	Natural
Resources Agreement.
An act respecting the construction of a line of railway by Canadian National Railway Company from Sherridon to Lynn Lake, in the province of Manitoba.
An act to amend the Supreme Court Act.
An act to incorporate The Ukrainian Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Saskatchewan.
An act respecting the Canada Post Office.
An act to amend The Income Tax Act.
An act respecting Canadian National Railways and to provide for the refunding of matured, maturing and callable financial obligations.
An act to incorporate The Great Lakes Reinsurance Company.
An act to amend The Veterans' Business and Professional Loans Act.
An act respecting Benefits for Members of the Canadian Forces.
An act to amend the Pension Act and change the title thereof.
An act to amend The Veterans Insurance Act.
An act to amend The Returned Soldiers' Insurance Act.
An act respecting Grants to Municipalities.
An act respecting The Trust and Loan Company of Canada.
An act to provide for Allowances for Blind Persons.
An act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures made and capital indebtedness incurred by the Canadian National Railways System during the calendar year 1951, and to authorize the guarantee by His Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company.
An act to amend The Federal District Commission Act, 1927.
An act to amend The Judges Act, 1946.
An act to amend The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
An act to provide for Old Age Assistance.
An act to amend The Dominion Elections Act, 1938.
An act to establish national standards for dairy products and to regulate interprovincial and international trade in dairy products.
An act to amend the Criminal Code.
An act for the relief of Ellen Agnes Evans Boisvert.
An act for the relief of Muriel Bruce Higgins Greenleaf.
An act for the relief of Real Levesque.
An act for the relief of Mary Ruth Langlois Michael.
An act for the relief of Betty Roseman Feigelman.
An act for the relief of Rachel Aizer Forman.
An act for the relief of Romeo Paradis.
An act for the relief of Joseph Arthur Neveu.
An act for the relief of Kathleen Harrington Courcy.
An act for the relief of Anna Goralczyk Jurewicz.
[Stage Direction]
The Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Colette Clement Carrieres.
An act for the relief of Bertha Barbara Bishop Wheatley.
An act for the relief of Carl Marius Nielsen.
An act for the relief of Doris Eileen Rowe Brenan Stavert.
An act for the relief of Gertrude Job Fraser.
An act for the relief of Ruth Fishman Wynn.
An act for the relief of Beatrice Vida Harriett Hunnisett Glenday.
An act for the relief of Salfeda Busko Williams.
An act for the relief of Margaret Isobel Barnett.
An act for the relief of Thelma Rosenberg Schwarz Bard.
An act for the relief of Rollande Cecile Larocque Duquette.
An act for the relief of Etta Smolkin Shapiro.
An act for the relief of Jeanne Wigdor Millman.
An act for the relief of Capitola Jodoin Ranger.
An act for the relief of Gaston Deguire.
An act for the relief of Jean Troster Fink.
An act for the relief of Rae Goldstein White.
An act for the relief of Phyllis Eileen Paris Gibson.
An act for the relief of Lorraine Colville Watson Anderson.
An act for the relief of Edward Stanley Darby.
An act for the relief of Bernard Kenneth McCormack.
An act for the relief of Mansell Reginald Jacques.
An act for the relief of Julia Starr Melnick.
An act for the relief of William Alfred Jameson.
An act for the relief of Jean Camille Antoine Coutu.
An act for the relief of Mary Jenner Watkins.
An act for the relief of Geraldine Mae Cuffe Kennedy.
An act for the relief of Lucille Ida Fenlon Ashmore.
An act for the relief of Ela Raizman.
An act for the relief of Julia Saad Shagory.
An act for the relief of Lottie Aileen Wright Robinson.
An act for the relief of Arthur David Prosser.
An act for the relief of Edmund Vaughan Stewart.
An act for the relief of Marie Madeleine Clemence McKenzie Caron.
An act for the relief of Meinerth Aage Arsvold Wick.
An act for the relief of Myrtle Louise Vassel Evans.
An act for the relief of Margo Clare McManus McKeown.
An act for the relief of Eli Wilson Jewer.
An act for the relief of Beulah Nellie Elliott.
An act for the relief of Terez Baranyai Jekkel, otherwise known as Therese Baranyai Jekkel.
An act for the relief of Andrew Krilyk.
An act for the relief of Harold Dimond Parsons.
An act for the relief of Peter Seniw.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Agnes Bell Bissonnette.
An act for the relief of Gertrude Banner Jones.
An act for the relief of Selma Schenker Wyler.
An act for the relief of Frances Helen Shulman Cohen.
An act for the relief of Agnes Mary Binnie Bullock.
An act for the relief of Marie Rose Berthe Bernard Greco.
An act for the relief of Paul Emile LeBlanc.
An act for the relief of Taras Pieluch.
An act for the relief of Joyce Margaret Wright Roxburgh.
An act for the relief of Elsie Mary Harrop Cameron.
An act for the relief of Anna Kirk Rosborough Finlayson.

An act for the relief of Marie Madeleine Pauline Parent Bjarnason.
An act for the relief of Mona Patricia Kiddie Heaney.
An act for the relief of Irmgard Magdalena Hetzel Lichtenstein.
An act for the relief of Anna Boronow Walter.
An act for the relief of Ann Smith Couldrey.
An act for the relief of Phoebe Ross Kidd.
An act for the relief of Alice Ann Gordon Lewis.
An act for the relief of Evelyn Serchuk Desjardins.
An act for the relief of Vivian June Pomeroy Walker.
An act for the relief of Vivian Edna Bartlett Tribe.
An act for the relief of Jeannine Lafleur Leather-dale.
An act for the relief of Bertram Kenneth Kidman.
An act for the relief of Louis Elie Yon.
An act for the relief of Doris Mary Thompson Lummis.
An act for the relief of Estelle Tetreau Latour.
An act for the relief of Mona Fern Barton Kirk-man.
An act for the relief of Addie Jane Monica Wright Brock.
An act for the relief of Evelyn Maria Bianchi Lippiatt.
An act for the relief of Leon Simon Marchand.
An act for the relief of Ruth Helen Findlay Paterson Priestman.
An act for the relief of Ilse Helen Kneutgen Jorgensen.
An act for the relief of Howard Wesley Bartlett.
An act for the relief of Stephanos Katinoglou.
An act for the relief of Yetta Handler Meller.
An act for the relief of Raymond Landry.
An act for the relief of Lloyd1 William Lane.
An act for the relief of Lovannez Chartrand Dinelle.
An act for the relief of Sophie Kotsos Moscoutis.
An act for the relief of Mae Kert Sigman.
An act for the relief of Sarah Jane Greeley Smith.
An act for the relief of John Cook Donaldson.
An act for the relief of Cecily Chandler Troop.
An act for the relief of Doris May Thompson Ewaldt.
An act for the relief of Laurette Trudel Charland.
An act for the relief of William Stevenson Green-shields.
An act for the relief of Clare Kent Gerrie Jorgensen.
An act for the relief of Beatrice Watson Bell.
An act for the relief of Marion Cruickshank MacArthur.
An act for the relief of Annie Mendelson Teitel-baum.
An act for the relief of Gwendoline Mary Teresa Sullivan Duddridge.
An act for the relief of Jane Stirling Stephens.
An act for the relief of Mavis Elizabeth Thomas Wrathall.
An act for the relief of Ida Courland Rubin Flesch.
An act for the relief of Yvonne Winifred Kathleen Walker Andrews.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Cochrane Aitchison Lalonde.
An act for the relief of Violet Taylor Carey.
An act for the relief of Julia Saykaly Hajaly.
An act for the relief of Doris Auclair Gingras.
An act for the relief of Georges Paquin.
An act for the relief of Marion Agnes Kelsch Cleghorn.
An act for the relief of Marie Laure Jacqueline Patenaude Racine.
An act for the relief of Muriel Edna Glass Fryer.

An act for the relief of Emma Laronde Bell, sometimes known as Emma DeLaronde Bell.
An act for the relief of Birute Elena Vaitkunaite Akstinas.
An act for the relief of Georges Keith Henderson.
An act for the relief of Joseph Alfred Sabourin.
An act for the relief of Sarah Kamichik Coviensky.
An act for the relief of Yvette Marsan Valiquette, otherwise known as Marie Fernande Yvette Marsan Valiquette.
An act for the relief of Margaret Elizabeth McIntyre Williams.
An act for the relief of Mildred Ann Sinclair Allen.
An act for the relief of Gabrielle Robert Mallette.
An act for the relief of Archibald Kenneth MacLean.
An act for the relief of Marion Evelyn Peak Collins.
An act for the relief of John Brock Short.
An act for the relief of Joseph Duchesne.
An act for the relief of Eugenie Marjorie Ross Finley.
An act for the relief of Helen Marion Peacock Rondeau.
An act for the relief of Ruth Mary Halsey Shaw.
An act for the relief of Rodolphe Boisjoly.
An act for the relief of Theresa Verna Brisson Humphreys.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Shapiro Ram.
An act for the relief of Ivy Grace Barnsdale Moore.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Chaffee Caduc.
An act for the relief of Flora Muriel Crane Keane.
An act for the relief of Opal Jean Ellis Pike.
An act for the relief of Elphege Fournier.
An act for the relief of Marie Elizabeth Rose Ange Cousineau Brousseau.
To these bills the royal assent was pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:
In His Majesty's name the Honourable the Deputy Administrator doth assent to these bills.
Then the Speaker of the House of Commons addressed the Deputy Administrator as follows:
May it please Your Honour:
The Commons of Canada have voted supplies required to enable the government to defray certain expenses of the public service.
In the name of the Commons, I present to Your Honour the following bill:
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1952.
To which bill I humbly request Your Honour's assent.
To this bill the Clerk of the Senate, by command of the Deputy Administrator, did thereupon say:
In His Majesty's name, the Honourable the Deputy Administrator thanks his loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to this bill.

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the adjournment of this house and to move that in accordance with the order made earlier it stand adjourned until October 9 at eleven o'clock in the forenoon, unless in the meantime you find it necessary to request the members to return earlier. I am sure that we all hope sincerely that the international situation and domestic situation will
Business of the House continue such that you will not have to exercise the power which was provided in the resolution adopted by this house.
I think it is a most fortunate coincidence that we are able to adjourn at this time and that we may be able to participate with our fellow Canadians tomorrow and the next day in the celebration of Dominion day, the national festival of Canada. I think it is also a fortunate coincidence that there have occurred in recent days incidents which enable us to look rather hopefully for possible developments which we look for in the relatively near future. I have no further information about those developments, but nothing has been communicated to us which would dampen the hopes with which I am sure we and all Canadians have received the news that efforts are being made to bring about a cessation of hostilities in Korea. I hope that we shall not be disappointed and that the events of the immediate future will be such that we shall be able to attend to matters other than debates in this house between this time and October 9. If I may be allowed to say a personal word, I should like to extend to you, sir, and to all my colleagues in this house my best wishes for a restoring period of relaxation which will enable us to come back at the fixed time in a state of body and mind which will be conducive to a proper consideration and determination of the many important matters that will have to be dealt with during the course of the autumn session.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I join with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in the expression of hope that the encouraging signs that there may be some expectation of the cessation of hostilities in Korea will in fact be realized. On the eve of the 84th anniversary of the adoption of the basic constitution of this nation it must be a matter of pride for all of us to realize the extent to which Canada has grown in stature and dignity over the years and to see this country occupying a place of such responsibility in the councils of the world.
In the attainment of that growth and dignity, this house and the parliament of Canada have played an immensely important part. To every one of us this house and the free debates which take place are cherished because we recognize the immense value of the free discussion of the affairs of the nation in the way in which they can be conducted here. In that discussion of the nation's business the senior commoner, who occupies the Speaker's throne, does accept very great responsibilities in maintaining the traditions which are so closely associated with all that we have achieved. May I say to the Speaker that all of us are very proud of the way

Business of the House in which he has conducted that high office. May I also say that with all of us there is an admiration for the gracious and extremely fair manner in which he has always dealt with the business of this house.
This parliament of ours, and the house in which we now are members, have a very particular significance at this time. No matter what differences of opinion we may have as to the details of procedure or manner in which the business of the country is to be carried out, the dignity and the responsibility of this house are, I know, a source of pride to every one of us. The Speaker has played an extremely important part in that democratic process for each one of us here. During the past year he has won distinction outside this house, and when he visited London last autumn was most highly and justly praised for the manner in which he represented us at Westminster in the memorable meetings that took place there at that time. May I express the hope to you, Mr. Speaker, that we shall all be able to cooperate with you in carrying forward those great traditions.
During the course of the debates that have taken place I for one have perhaps at times added to your difficulties. May I say without reservation that I hope you will accept my assurance that 1 regret if anything I may have done may have added to the problems of the very high and responsible office that you hold. May I also say without any reservation whatever that in the rapid and somewhat interrupted exchange of debate within the past few days I used an expression which was both unparliamentary and inappropriate. I mention it only for this reason the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who is the chosen leader of the government of Canada in these days, will be called upon to accept heavy responsibilities during the months ahead. In the performance of those responsibilities the thoughts of all of us, regardless of party, will be with him, and we shall all be hoping that out of those deliberations which are going to take place there may be the fulfilment of all our hopes.
No matter what may have been said in the heat of debate, I wish to assure the Prime Minister that I have no reservations whatever about my confidence in his personal courage and in his willingness to accept the full responsibility of the high office which he holds. May I say, and in this perhaps I may presume to speak for all members, that during the months ahead, when the Prime Minister will be called upon to speak on behalf of Canada in days of great responsibility, I feel sure that each one of us will be wishing and hoping that he may have health, strength and success in the performance of these great


tasks. As we approach the eighty-fifth year of this still young nation, I do not think there is a better birthday wish that any of us could have than that out of the deliberations that are to take place there may be found a basis for continuing peace which is the reason for the heavy contributions that this nation is about to make.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, so far as I can remember, and my memory goes back some times, the adjournment of the house over a long period, as it is being adjourned now, has seldom, I think, been preceded by speeches such as we have heard this evening. Because of the tenor of those speeches, I think it might be well if such a procedure became a custom. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) referred to the Korean situation and the hope that the negotiations for a cease-fire that have now commenced may terminate in a peaceful settlement of that situation. I think that must be the fervent hope not only of the members of this house and the people of this country but of the people of the entire world. Nothing that could happen in the world today would be so acceptable as the advent of peace.
The Prime Minister wished us a pleasant vacation. Perhaps those are not the words that he used, but as the one who must of necessity take the heaviest share of the load of the work that is done during a session, I hope that he will find time for relaxation so that he will come back in October refreshed and ready for whatever the days ahead may demand.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope that we may all have some little time for relaxation, and I wish to thank the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) for their very kind words. I wish to say to the leader of the opposition that I am very pleased to accept his words in the spirit in which he spoke them, and I merely add that if we were not occasionally somewhat impetuous we might not have the other qualities that are required to discharge the responsibilities that are ours. I think perhaps the addition of a little spice to the proceedings of the house does no permanent harm to the traditions of parliamentary institutions because after all they are institutions which have to be used and managed by human beings, and it is perhaps not amiss that from time to time we should reveal the natural traits of human beings generally.


Mr. Speaker:: May I extend to the Prime Minister on behalf of all members the good wishes that have been expressed for him by the leader of the opposition and by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I would also thank him for his gracious remarks concern-

ing me, and I would especially express my appreciation to the leader of the opposition. The days we have gone through have not been easy days for leaders in this house. I think you will all agree with me that it took great courage to make the remarks that were made by the leader of the opposition this evening. He says he regrets if he has made my task as Speaker more difficult. I can assure him he has not made my task more difficult, he has merely helped to make it more interesting than it would otherwise have been.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 7.40 p.m., until Tuesday, October 9, 1951, at eleven o'clock a.m., unless otherwise ordered, pursuant to the provisions, of the special order made Wednesday, June 27, 1951.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
818.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $37,000.
819.	Canadian pension commission-administration expenses-further amount required, $47,000. Pensions and other benefits-
820.	Pensions for disability and death, including pensions granted under the authority of the Civilian Government Employees (War) Compensation Order P.C. 45/8848 of 22nd November, 1944, which shall be subject to the Pension Act-further amount required, $1,570,000.
821.	Assistance fund (war veterans' allowances) - further amount required, $100,000.
822.	To provide financial assistance after the thirty-first day of May, 1951, in accordance with regulations to be made by the governor in council, to unemployable veterans who are in receipt of pensions under the Pension Act for a disability which is a factor contributing to their unemployability; such financial assistance to be exempt from income tax under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, $2,000,000.
Soldier Settlement and Veterans' Land Act-
823.	To authorize and provide, subject to the approval of the governor in council in each case, for the completion of necessary remedial work to houses and services constructed under the 1945 building program (revote)-further amount required, $32,000.

[Stage Direction]
186.	To provide for expenses of the economics and research branch, $460,711.
187.	Annuities Act administration, $808,684.
188.	Fair wages, conciliation, industrial relations, industrial disputes investigations, including the administration of legislation relating thereto, and for activities re promotion of co-operation in industry between labour and management, $348,542.
189.	Canada labour relations board, $8,000.
190.	International labour conferences, $61,118.
191.	Labour Gazette, authorized by Labour Department Act, $120,948.
192.	To provide for the effective organization and use of agricultural manpower, including recruiting, transporting and placing workers on farms and related industries and assistance to the provinces pursuant to agreements that may be entered into by the Minister of Labour with the provinces and approved by the governor in council, $255,000. Vocational Training Co-ordination Act, 1942-
193.	Administration. $30,431.
Supply
Expenditures for vocational training under the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act, 1942, and agreements between the dominion and provinces approved by the governor in council, including vocational school assistance, projects for training of persons to fit them for gainful employment or for defence industries, youth training, apprenticeship training, vocational training at secondary school level, foremanship and supervisory training and for training of members of His Majesty's forces and other persons to fit them for skilled armed sendee occupations and to authorize the Minister of Labour to enter into an agreement with any province on terms approved by the governor in council for such expenditures, as well as to provide for undischarged commitments of previous years-
194.	Training payments to the provinces, $3,332,000.
195.	Payments to the provinces for capital expenditures for vocational schools, buildings and equipment, $1,250,000.
Government employees compensation-
196.	Administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $59,716.
Terminable services-
197.	To provide for expenses including authority to establish advisory committees on industrial matters and manpower co-ordination to act in an advisory capacity to the Minister of Labour, $27,848.
198.	Vocational training for discharged members of Canada's armed forces, including undischarged commitments of previous years, $10,000.
199.	To provide for payment to the national film board for educational films for exhibition, $24,000.
200.	To provide for expenses that may be incurred in the arranging for and the movement of workers from outside Canada to work on farms and other essential industry in Canada when Canadian labour is not available to meet the need; including costs connected with the supervision and welfare of persons already immigrated to Canada under former authorized labour movements and administrative expenses connected therewith, $667,956.
B-Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940-
201.	Administration, including expenditures incurred in connection with the activities of the national employment service as delegated by the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 88 of the act, $23,847,199.
202.	Government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund, $27,500,000.
203.	To provide for the transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available in agriculture and industry and expenses incidental thereto, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $200,000.
204.	To provide for the payment of unemployment assistance to certain residents of Newfoundland to give effect to the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council and such assistance shall be deemed to be a benefit or payment within the meaning of sections 33 and 67 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940, $500,000.
A-Department-
General administration-
707.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $13,057.
Annuities Act-
708. Administration-further	amount required, $50,000.
709.	To provide, notwithstanding the Government Annuities Act, authority for payment out of the government annuities fund to Fred Clare and
[Stage Direction]
Supply
Celia Clare, purchasers of Canadian government annuity contracts Nos. 313,519 and 313,520 of the premiums paid with respect to said contracts less amounts of the instalments of annuity paid under the contracts, $1.00.
710.	Notwithstanding the Government Annuities Act, to authorize the Minister of Labour in consequence of the transfer of employees from the original employers to the new employers specified in the details of the estimates to enter into contracts with the original employers and the new employers, to provide that the new employers shall, effective on the dates respectively specified in the details become parties to group annuity contracts specified in the said details respectively in the place of the original employers with respect to employees to whom those contracts applied and who were transferred to the new employers and for the application of the contracts in respect of service with the original employers and the new employers and for such other terms as the minister deems necessary for the maintenance and continuity of pension rights of the employees under those contracts, and to provide for payments in the current and subsequent fiscal years in accordance with the contracts so entered into out of the government annuities account, $1.00.
711.	To authorize payments after as well as before the end of the current fiscal year out of the government annuities fund in discharge of obligations purported to have been made with respect to hourly-rate employees under paragraph 2 of subsection (b) of section 3 of group annuity contract G565 entered into under the Government Annuities Act with the subsidiary companies of General Motors Corporation (U.S.A.) operating in Canada, $1.00.
Vocational Training Co-ordination Act, 1942-
712.	Expenditures for vocational training under the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act, 1942, and agreements between the dominion and provinces approved by the governor in council, including vocational school assistance, projects for training of persons to fit them for gainful employment, or for defence industries, youth training, apprenticeship training, vocational training at secondary school level, foremanship and supervisory training and for training of members of His Majesty's forces and other persons to fit them for skilled armed service occupations and to authorize the Minister of Labour to enter into an agreement with any province on terms approved by the governor in council for such expenditures, as well as to provide for undischarged commitments of previous years- Training payments to the provinces-further amount required, $320,000.
Terminable services-
713.	To provide for expenses that may be incurred in the arranging for and the movement of workers from outside Canada to work on farms and other essential industry in Canada when Canadian labour is not available to meet the need; including costs connected with the supervision and welfare of persons already immigrated to Canada under former authorized labour movements and administrative expenses connected therewith-further amount required, $131,200.
714.	To authorize the Minister of Labour to arrange for a program of rehabilitation for the physically handicapped, including the appointment of an advisory committee, and to provide for expenditures in connection therewith, $48,000.
715.	To provide for expenditures to be incurred on preparatory work to implement recommendations made by the national advisory council on manpower, $30,000.
Special-
716.	To authorize and provide for federal contributions to reimburse the province of Quebec for one-half the expenditure for reconstruction of
buildings of technical and marine schools, Rimouski, Quebec, and one-half the cost of re-equipping the technical school in accordance with the agreement entered into between the Minister of Labour and the province of Quebec (revote), $65,419.
B-Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940-
717.	To reimburse the unemployment insurance fund under section 87F(1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940, as amended by statute of 1950, $40,000.

[Stage Direction]
318.	Departmental administration, $951,541.
319.	Operations-including salaries and other expenses of staff post offices, district offices, railway-mail service staffs, and supplies, equipment and other items for revenue post offices, also including administration, $54,256,849.
320.	Transportation-movement of mail by land, air and water, including administration, $36,919,486.
321.	Financial services, including audit of revenue, money order and savings bank business; and postage stamps, $2,292,813.
736.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $59,000.
737.	Operations-including salaries and other expenses of staff post offices, district offices, railway mail service staffs and supplies, equipment and other items for revenue post offices, also including administration-further amount required, $2,411,975.
738.	Transportation-movement of mail by land, air and water, including administration-further amount required, $100,000.

[Stage Direction]
General administration-
112.	Departmental administration, $1,505,769.
113.	Comptroller of the treasury-central office and branch offices administration, and to authorize payment to Norman Bell of compensation at a rate equivalent to £4-10-0 per week in respect of injuries received while employed in the overseas office of the comptroller of the treasury, $12,084,941. Administration of various acts and costs of special
functions-
114.	Superannuation and retirement acts, administration, $176,603.
115.	The Bank Act-salaries and expenses of the inspector general of banks' office, $27,968.
116.	Administration of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1943 and the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, 1938, $19,582.
117.	Administration of the Farm Improvement Loans Act, 1944, and the Veterans' Business and Professional Loans Act, 1946, $66,011.
118.	Foreign Exchange Control Act, 1946-administrative costs (other than those provided by the Bank of Canada), $140,000.
119.	Expenses of the tariff board, $112,023.
120.	Expenses of the Royal Canadian Mint and the assay office, Vancouver, B.C., and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $200,000, $929,245.
The wartime prices and trade board-
121.	Administration, $186,750.
122.	Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation- adjustment payment in respect of subsidies previously paid, and costs of administration, $75,000.
123.	Administration of employees' instalment purchase plan, including sale and delivery of Canada savings bonds to government employees, and of employees' group insurance plans, $99,082.
124.	Administration of the Consumer Credit (Temporary Provisions) Act, $80,500.

Public debt charges-
Servicing of public debt-
125.	Commission for payment of interest on public debt, services of fiscal agents, London, registrar's fees, etc., $339,700.
126.	To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, and as detailed in the estimates, for losses incurred in the issue and redemption of Canada savings bonds, and for miscellaneous losses arising from the sale or distribution of war savings certificates, war savings stamps, victory bonds or Canada savings bonds, $8,000.
Payments to municipalities-
Grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on federal property-
127.	To provide for administration of the program respecting grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on crown property outlined in the House of Commons, on November 14, 1949, including grants and other payments to be made in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $1,845,000.
Contingencies and miscellaneous-
128.	To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for miscellaneous minor and unforeseen expenses, including recoverable advances for working capital purposes, and1 for the re-use of any sums repaid to this appropriation from other appropriations, $1,000,000.
129.	Cost of telephone service at Ottawa for all departments, $605,000.
General items of payroll costs including superannuation payments-
130.	To provide for a government contribution to the superannuation fund in an amount equal to the estimated current payments of individual contributors in the previous fiscal year, $7,966,800.
131.	To provide, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for supplementing other votes for the payment of salaries, wages and other pay list charges, $1,500,000.
132.	To provide for the government's contribution, as an employer, to the unemployment insurance fund in respect of government employees paid through the central pay office, $1,150,000.
Miscellaneous grants-
133.	Canadian general council of the Boy Scouts, $15,000.
134.	Canadian council of the Girl Guides Association, $9,000.
135.	Royal Astronomical Society of Canada,
[Stage Direction]
136.	Royal Canadian Academy of Arts, $2,025.
137.	Canadian Writers Foundation, $4,000.
138.	Canadian Olympic Association, $20,000.
139.	Boys' Clubs of Canada, $12,500.
General administration-
Comptroller of the treasury-
689.	Central office and branch offices administration-further amount required to organize for payment of universal old age pensions, $643,700.
Grants to universities-
690.	To provide grants to universities and equivalent institutions of higher learning in amounts not exceeding in total for each province fifty cents per head of population of that province, as determined by the dominion bureau of statistics, and in accordance with regulations to be made by the governor in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, who is authorized to consult a committee drawn from the national conference of Canadian
Supply
universities in regard to the apportionment of such grants among institutions within each province on the general principle of making such grants proportionate to the enrolment of students at the university level and pursuing courses recognized as leading to a university degree, $7,100,000.
Auditor general's office-
52. Salaries and expenses of office, $612,836.

[Stage Direction]
National health branch-
Health services-
731.	Immigration medical services-further amount required, $154,460.
732.	Industrial health-further amount required, $17,200.
Welfare branch-
Old age pensions and pensions to the blind-
733. Administration-further amount required, $31,260.
Old age security-
734.	To conduct the necessary registration for universal old age pensions and to organize and administer the payment of such pensions, $508,500.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
171.	Departmental administration, $278,399.
172.	Remission service, including remuneration to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, other police forces and members of social welfare organizations (to be expended under order in council, and not to exceed $5,400) for assistance to this service, and an amount of $18,422 to reimburse the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force the amounts disbursed by them in ordinary pay and allowances to their men on loan to this service, $119,331.
Administration of justice-
173.	Miscellaneous expenditure, including expenses of litigated matters, $25,000.
Supreme Court of Canada-
174.	Administration, $143,199.
Exchequer Court of Canada-
175.	Administration, $81,694.
Yukon territorial court-
176.	Administration, $12,050.
Other courts-
177.	Payments of gratuities to the widows or other dependents of judges who dies while in office, $15,000.
178.	Combines investigation branch, $248,060.
179.	Bankruptcy Act administration, $38,678. General-
180.	To provide for the revision, classification and consolidation of the public general statutes of Canada, $57,500.
181.	To provide for the revision of the Criminal Code, $32,725.
B-Penitentiaries-
Office of the commissioner of penitentiaries-
182.	Administration of the office of the commissioner of penitentiaries, including $35,000 for grants to recognized prisoners' aid societies, as may be approved by the governor in council, $306,014.
183.	Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries, including supplies and services relating thereto: administration, operation, repair and upkeep of buildings, works and equipment; maintenance, discharge and transfer of convicts; compensation to
[Stage Direction]
Supply
discharged convicts permanently disabled) while in penitentiaries, $7,433,900.
184.	Construction, improvements and new equipment, including provision for the establishment and construction of a new institution in the province of Quebec for the confinement and reformation of federal prisoners and to authorize commitments against future years in the amount of $200,000, $1,332,411.
Insurance-
169.	Departmental administration, $377,445.
170.	Expenses of work in the interests of fire prevention, $38,928.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
428.	General administration, $356,361.
Land services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses-
429.	Operation and maintenance, $21,278,916.
430.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment, $3,251,129.
Marine services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses-
431.	Operation and maintenance, $1,092,030.
432.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment, $28,700.
Aviation services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses-
433.	Operation and maintenance, $182,696.
434.	Construction or acquisition of new equipment, $21,000.
435.	Grant to the chief constables' association of Canada, $500.
Pensions and other benefits-
436.	Pensions to families of members of the mounted police who have lost their lives while on duty, as detailed in the estimates, $6,133.
437.	Pension to Basil Burke Currie, $685.
438.	Pension to Annie A. Greer, $254.
Land services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses-
784.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and new equipment-further amount required, $810,070.
Aviation services-arising out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, enforcement of federal statutes generally, and other incidental expenses-
785.	Operation and maintenance-further amount required, $13,523.
A-Department-
701.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $6,000.
Supreme Court of Canada-
702. Administration-further amount required,
[Stage Direction]
703.	To provide for the revision, classification and consolidation of the public general statutes of Canada-further amount required, $200,000.
704.	To provide for the revision of the Criminal Code-further amount required, $20,000.
B-Penitentiaries-
Office of the commissioner of penitentiaries-
705.	Operation and maintenance of penitentiaries, including supplies and services relating thereto; administration, operation, repair and upkeep of buildings, works and equipment; maintenance, discharge and transfer of convicts; compensation to discharged convicts permanently disabled while in penitentiaries-further amount required, $125,291.
706.	Construction, improvements and new equipment, including provision for the establishment and construction of a new institution in the province of Quebec for the confinement and reformation of federal prisoners and to increase the authority for commitments against future years from $200,000, included in vote 184, main estimates, 1951-52, to $400,000-further amount required, $556,380.

[Stage Direction]
B-Dominion coal board-
243.	Administration and investigations of the dominion coal board, $108,685.
244.	Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council, $4,000,000.
Mines branch-
Mineral resources investigations-
725.	Administration, operation and maintenance -further amount required, $50,177.
Investigations of radioactive ores-
726.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $15,025.
Geological survey of Canada-
727.	Geological surveys-administration, operation and maintenance-further amount required, $150,314.

[Stage Direction]
The Senate-[DOT]
The Speaker of the Senate-
205.	Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000.
206.	General administration, $362,185.
House of Commons-
The Speaker of the House of Commons-
207.	Allowance in lieu of residence, $3,000.
Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons
208.	Allowance in lieu of apartments, $1,500.
209.	General administration-estimates of the clerk, $967,046.
210.	Estimates of the sergeant-at-arms, $548,824.
211.	Subscriptions to publications of the commonwealth parliamentary association to be distributed to members of the House of Commons, and to provide for the Canadian share of expenses of the commonwealth parliamentary association, $10,000.
212.	To provide hereby, notwithstanding anything contained in the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act or the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of parliament, for the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to each member of the House of Commons appointed by the governor in council to be a parliamentary assistant (which appointment shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him as a member of the House of Commons) to assist a minister of the crown in such manner and to such extent as the minister may determine

and to represent his department in the House of Commons in the absence of the minister therefrom, a salary of four thousand dollars per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year, $56,000.
213.	To provide for an allowance to the deputy chairman of committees, $2,000.
General-
214.	Printing of parliament, including salaries of staff of the joint distribution office, $269,026.
Library of parliament-
215.	General administration, $147,411.
Pensions and other benefits-
216.	Pension to the unmarried sister of the late Colonel Harry Baker, M.P., $700.
The Senate-
718.	To provide for the payment of the full sessional indemnity for the third and fourth sessions of the twenty-first parliament, to members of the Senate for days lost through absence caused by public business, by illness, or on account of death. Payments to be made as the treasury board may direct, $19,000.
719.	To provide, notwithstanding anything contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act, for the payment to each member of the Senate who attended the first part of the present session which commenced on January 30, 1951, and ended on March 21, 1951, of an amount representing the actual transportation and living expenses of such member while on the journey between Ottawa and his place of residence after the Easter adjournment of parliament on March 21, 1951, and on the return journey from his place of residence to Ottawa at the end of the recess which commenced on that date, or at any other one time during the present session, $5,000.
720.	General administration-further amount required, $18,193.
Supply	*
House of Commons-
721.	To provide for the full sessional indemnity to members of the House of Commons-days lost through absence caused by illness, official public business, or order of the house, or on account of death, during the third and fourth sessions of the twenty-first parliament notwithstanding anything to the contrary in chapter 147 of the revised statutes, 1S27, an act respecting the Senate and House of Commons, or any amendment thereto. Payments to be made as the treasury board may direct, $18,500.
722.	To provide, notwithstanding anything contained in the Senate and House of Commons Act, for the payment to each member of the House of Commons who attended the first part of the present session, which commenced on January 30, 1951, and ended on March 21, 1951, of an amount representing the actual transportation and living expenses of such member while on the journey between Ottawa and his place of residence after the Easter adjournment of parliament on March 21, 1951, and on the return journey from his place of residence to Ottawa at the end of the recess which commenced on that date, or at other one time during the present session, $20,000.
723.	General administration-estimates of the clerk -further amount required, $45,000.
724.	Estimates of the sergeant-at-arms-further amount required, $61,600.

[Stage Direction]
668.	Amount required to recoup the agricultural prices support account to cover the net operating loss of the agricultural prices support board during the fiscal year 1950-51, $1,743,515.
669.	To provide assistance in apple tree removal in the province of Nova Scotia under such terms and conditions as may be approved by the governor in council, $200,000.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, October 9, 1951